Com. v. Smith, D.
631 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Appellant Demond Smith pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen property and one count of access device fraud; two related cases were consolidated.
- Commonwealth withdrew several burglary and receiving charges as part of the guilty plea agreement.
- Evidence showed pawned property tied to multiple break-ins in Aug–Sept 2014; victims testified about items pawned without permission.
- Restitution was ordered as a condition of probation, including amounts for items not recovered from pawn shops.
- Trial court sentenced CP-02-CR-0013592-2014 to 11 months 15 days–23 months in prison followed by 5 years’ probation; CP-02-CR-0014867-2014 sentences were similar and concurrent; restitution amounts were specified.
- Appellant timely appealed challenging the legality and discretionary aspects of his sentence; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution to non-recovered items was lawful | Smith argues Reed controls; no causal link to recoverable items. | Smith contends restitution for unrecovered jewelry/laptop is improper. | Restitution as probation condition proper due to indirect connection and rehabilitation. |
| Whether probationary restitution requires direct causation | Commonwealth says 9754 allows probationary restitution with indirect link. | Smith asserts need for direct link under Reed. | Nexus need only be indirect; restitution valid under 9754(c)(8) as probation condition. |
| Whether the trial court's reasons for the aggravated-range sentence were sufficient | Commonwealth argues record showed number/victims and rehabilitative needs justify severity. | Smith asserts the court failed to articulate §9721(b) reasons on the record. | Record showed consideration of victims, scope, and needs; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether waiver of a pre-sentence investigation invalidated sentencing | Commonwealth contends sufficient information existed to justify sentence without PSI. | Smith argues lack of PSI warrants challenge to sentencing rationale. | Judgment affirmed; court properly relied on available information to inform sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 543 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (direct connection requirement for restitution when not a direct sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 836 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (probation restitution may be indirect but tied to defendant's conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (illegality vs. discretionary restitution challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (pre-sentence information may substitute for PSI in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (open guilty plea preserves discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (needs for articulation of reasons in discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (record must reflect reasons and consideration of offender and crime)
- Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (general standards for review of sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (four-part test for reviewing discretionary sentencing)