Com. v. Rhoads, E.
125 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Eric Rhoads pled nolo contendere to one count of stalking and one count of theft by unlawful taking (both first‑degree misdemeanors) on November 3, 2016.
- On December 5, 2016, the court sentenced Rhoads to 11½ to 24 months’ incarceration on the stalking count (to be served locally for the minimum) and a consecutive 60 months’ probation on the theft count, plus a $1,000 fine; an amended order correcting a typographical error was entered February 1, 2017.
- Rhoads filed a timely post‑sentence motion and appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing as excessive and arguing the court failed to adequately consider various mitigating factors (age, employability, limited recent criminality, time already served, alleged overreliance on a prior PFA violation, and lack of alcohol involvement in the instant offenses).
- The trial court explained its reasons at sentencing: it reviewed the PSI and guidelines, heard the victim impact statement, recited Rhoads’ criminal history (DUIs, assaults, a PFA violation), found him undeterrable and a danger to the victim and society, and rejected probation or time‑served.
- The Superior Court treated the claim as a discretionary‑sentencing challenge, determined Rhoads’ Rule 2119(f) statement raised a substantial question, and reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court considered the statutory sentencing factors and PSI, declined to find an abuse of discretion, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing near‑maximum minimum incarceration for stalking and maximum probation for theft (aggregate 11½–24 months plus 5 yrs probation) | Commonwealth: sentencing discretion proper; court considered statutory factors and PSI | Rhoads: sentence excessive; court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (age, employability, limited recent record, time served, lack of alcohol involvement, overreliance on prior PFA) | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court considered §9721(b) factors and PSI; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary‑aspects appeal framework)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for preserving and presenting discretionary‑sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (when excessiveness plus failure to consider mitigators raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (relevant sentencing criteria under §9721(b) may raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court must be guided by protection of the public, gravity of the offense, and rehabilitative needs)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant information)