Com. v. Simpson, G.
Com. v. Simpson, G. No. 626 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- In 2011 Simpson pled guilty to Theft by Unlawful Taking for stealing items from vehicles and was sentenced to three years’ supervised probation and $1,200 restitution.
- While incarcerated in the Mercer County Jail Simpson was arrested for assaulting another inmate and later convicted of a new offense.
- At a Gagnon II hearing in February 2016 Simpson admitted the probation violation based on the new conviction and the court revoked probation.
- On March 30, 2016 the court resentenced Simpson to 2–4 years’ state imprisonment and reimposed $1,200 restitution.
- Simpson filed a post-sentence motion (denied), timely appealed, and raised (1) that the resentence was manifestly excessive and (2) that the court erred by not ordering motivational boot camp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simpson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2–4 year resentence after probation revocation was manifestly excessive | Sentence was excessive and unnecessary to vindicate the court; challenges discretionary aspects | Sentence imposed for a new criminal conviction; court properly considered public protection, offense gravity, and rehabilitation | Affirmed — no substantial question; even if reached, no abuse of discretion; sentence appropriate |
| Whether court erred by failing to consider/assign the state motivational boot camp | Court should have sentenced Simpson to boot camp as a rehabilitative alternative | Issue waived for appeal (not raised in Rule 2119(f) statement); trial court not required to impose boot camp | Affirmed — issue waived; not preserved for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (procedural protections for probation revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for raising discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for revocation sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (record and on-the-record reasons required when resentencing after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court must consider protection of public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs)