Com. v. Rothwell, L.
112 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Appellant La’Raine Rothwell has an extensive prior record including multiple retail theft convictions and prior probation violations.
- Arrested in 2013 for robbery, assault, retail theft, and receiving stolen property; in March 2014 the court sentenced her to 24 months county intermediate punishment with conditions including mental-health treatment and staying away from J.C. Penney.
- The court also imposed concurrent probation terms for earlier 2008 and 2011 convictions.
- Rothwell repeatedly failed to comply with program requirements: tested positive for cocaine multiple times, refused counseling participation, obtained prohibited narcotic prescriptions, and otherwise resisted treatment.
- After a Gagnon II hearing, the trial court revoked intermediate punishment and resentenced Rothwell on the 2011 docket to 24–84 months’ imprisonment and on the 2013 docket to 1–2 years consecutively (final order December 7, 2015).
- Rothwell appealed, arguing the aggregate confinement sentence was excessive and that probation or inpatient treatment remained a viable alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether total confinement after revocation was excessive | Rothwell: sentence harsh, court failed to apply 42 Pa.C.S. § 9725 standards and alternative treatment was available | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: confinement justified by repeated, flagrant violations and need to vindicate court authority and protect public | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors and confinement justified to vindicate authority and address rehabilitation failure |
| Whether sentence violated sentencing code or fundamental norms | Rothwell: confinement disproportionate to violations (technical and rehabilitative concerns) | Trial Ct: violations showed resistance to reform and danger of continued misconduct; incarceration necessary for treatment and deterrence | Raised a substantial question but rejected on merits; trial court properly weighed gravity, public protection, and rehabilitative needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (Gagnon II procedure for probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (discretionary sentencing review prerequisites)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (standards for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (revocation sentence review; vindicating court authority)
- Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (substantial-question analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (what raises a substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (probation-revocation sentence consistency with sentencing code)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (total confinement after technical violation may raise substantial question)