Com. v. Savage, G.
Com. v. Savage, G. No. 616 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Gregory T. Savage, Jr. pled guilty (May 16, 2011) to Delivery of Cocaine, PWID, and Possession (all after prior conviction); original sentence on Delivery: 15–30 months plus 3 years consecutive probation.
- While on probation he was convicted in Armstrong County of PWID (large quantities of cocaine and heroin) and was sentenced there to 2–5 years.
- On January 12, 2016 the Allegheny County court found Savage to be a convicted violator of probation and resentenced him to 2–5 years’ imprisonment (revocation sentence), made consecutive to the Armstrong County sentence.
- Appellant filed post-sentence motion (denied) and appealed, arguing the revocation sentence (effectively aggregate 4–10 years) was excessive, imposed from bias/ill will, and that the court failed to consider sentencing factors and rehabilitative needs.
- The trial court (Judge Rangos) explained it viewed Savage as a drug dealer who violated supervision, absconded from police, and thus justification existed for incarceration; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2–5 year revocation sentence was manifestly excessive/abusive | Savage: sentence was excessive, based on judicial bias/ill will and failure to consider statutory sentencing factors and rehabilitative needs | Court: revocation sentencing standards differ from initial sentencing; Savage committed a new crime (PWID), absconded, has prior record and violated probation, justifying confinement | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; reasons on record supported revocation term |
| Whether the court failed to state reasons or consider factors required by Sentencing Code | Savage: court didn’t adequately consider character/background/rehabilitation and improperly imposed consecutive sentence | Court: revocation courts need not recite lengthy reasons; record and judge’s experience with defendant suffice; statutory criteria for confinement on revocation were met | Held that the court adequately considered facts; Pasture and §9771 governed and supported the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural requirements for discretionary-aspect sentencing challenges and when an appeal may proceed)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (standards for revocation sentences: Guidelines do not apply; reasons on record need not be elaborate)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (revocation sentencing permissive scope and deference to trial judge familiar with defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standard-range sentences carry a presumption of reasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 1995) (claim that court “failed to consider” factors generally does not raise a substantial question for appeal)