Com. v. Price, L.
187 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Leslie Alan Price (Appellant) had multiple prior convictions (forgery, theft, theft by deception, furnishing false urine, DUI) and was serving several probationary sentences.
- After prior plea dispositions in 2014–2015, Price repeatedly violated supervision, committed new offenses, and tested positive for opiates while on probation.
- On June 1, 2016, Price pled guilty/no contest to a consolidated count of simple assault for violently resisting probation officers and deputies, injuring two officers.
- At the same hearing the court revoked probation in multiple prior cases and imposed consecutive custody and revocation sentences, producing an aggregate term of 5 years, 3 months to 17 years’ imprisonment.
- Appointed counsel initially failed to perfect a timely appeal; the court later reinstated the appeal nunc pro tunc. Price argued his sentence was excessive because the court failed to adequately consider his mental-health struggles and participation in Drug/Treatment Court.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Price raised a substantial question and whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; it affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Price's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was excessive/unduly harsh given treatment-court involvement and mental-health/addiction issues | Court failed to adequately consider Price’s mental-health and addiction treatment efforts; sentence disproportionate | Sentencing court considered record, prior failures, danger to public, and permissibly imposed consecutive revocation sentences within statutory bounds | No substantial question shown; even if considered, no abuse of discretion — sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary aspects of sentence review in revocation context requires jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing review in appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (substantial-question standard requires showing inconsistency with sentencing code or fundamental norms)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claim that court failed to weigh mitigating factors does not usually raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Ziegler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessiveness claim plus assertion court inadequately considered a mitigating factor may present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (greater deference to trial court on revocation sentencing; harsher post-revocation sentence not abuse where original sentence was lenient and conditions were violated)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing review)