Com. v. Smith, K., Jr.
71 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- On June 18, 2013 Columbia County probation officers and Scott Township police encountered Kevin Alan Smith Jr.; officers discovered outstanding warrants, Smith escaped after being handcuffed, struggled with Sgt. Grassley, kicked out a patrol car window, and Grassley injured his shoulder. Smith was charged in case 2013-668 (assaults, resisting arrest, summary offenses).
- While jailed, Smith broke his cell window attempting escape and was charged in case 2013-669 (escape, attempted escape, institutional vandalism, summary offense).
- Smith waived preliminary hearings, pled guilty on September 14, 2015: to simple assault and resisting arrest in 2013-668; to criminal attempt (escape) and institutional vandalism in 2013-669; remaining counts withdrawn.
- At sentencing (Dec. 21, 2015) Smith—with a prior record score of 4 and documented mental-health diagnoses (borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, multiple hospitalizations)—received 15–30 months on attempted escape (2013-669) (concurrent 3–6 months for vandalism), and consecutive 4–8 months on simple assault (2013-668) (resisting arrest concurrent 3–6 months); aggregate 19–38 months.
- Smith filed a post-sentence motion arguing the court failed to consider his mental-health history; it was denied. He appealed, raising discretionary-sentencing claims that the court abused its discretion and failed to consider his mental health.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate review is permitted of Smith's discretionary-sentencing challenge | Smith: trial court abused discretion and failed to consider mental-health in sentencing; remand for resentencing | Commonwealth: Smith's Rule 2119(f) statement fails to raise a substantial question | Court: Smith failed to raise a substantial question because he did not allege the court was unaware of his mental-health issues; appeal not permitted on discretionary-sentencing ground |
| Whether sentencing court abused discretion by imposing confinement in a state correctional facility rather than a mental-health facility/treatment | Smith: given his mental-health diagnoses, he should have received a treatment-based alternative rather than state confinement | Commonwealth: sentencing judge has broad discretion to select among statutory alternatives and accounted for Smith's history; sentence within guidelines | Court: even on merits, no abuse of discretion; judge considered mental-health, placed him in forensic units, and imposed guideline-range sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2008) (no absolute right to appeal discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claim that court failed to consider mental-health issues does not necessarily present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court cannot look beyond 2119(f) statement to find a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Pinko, 811 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2002) (example of sentence providing inpatient treatment as part of intermediate punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Childs, 664 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 1995) (sentencer has broad discretion among sentencing alternatives consistent with public protection, gravity, and rehabilitation)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (same principle regarding sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate reversal of guideline-range sentence requires showing the sentence is clearly unreasonable)