Com. v. Springer, E.
438 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Elsie Springer pled open guilty on December 19, 2016 to one count each of criminal trespass, retaliation against a witness/victim/party, criminal mischief, and resisting arrest; other counts were nolle prossed.
- The Commonwealth recommended a standard-range sentence; trial court advised Springer the statutory maximum exposure was high (described in plea colloquy).
- On February 7, 2017 the court sentenced Springer to an aggregate term of 6 months to 24 months imprisonment followed by five years probation; some counts received probation-only and one M2 received jail time.
- Springer filed a timely appeal and a Rule 1925(b) concise statement contesting the court’s failure to consider rehabilitative needs (arguing family/support in New York) and the weighing of sentencing factors under 42 Pa.C.S. §9721(b).
- The trial court had prepared and considered a PSI, explained its sentencing rationale at the hearing, and detailed how the sentence balanced punishment, rehabilitation opportunities (work release, treatment programs), and probationary supervision.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding Springer's challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing waived for failure to file a post-sentence motion and concluding her Rule 2119(f) claim did not present a substantial question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider all relevant sentencing factors (including rehabilitative needs) under 42 Pa.C.S. §9721(b) | Springer: Court did not adequately consider rehabilitative needs and local support; she has PRS=0 and needs placement/rehab in New York with family support | Commonwealth/Trial Court: Court considered PSI and numerous factors, explained sentencing choices, crafted a mix of jail and extended probation to promote rehabilitation | Affirmed; claim waived for lack of post-sentence motion and does not raise a substantial question; record shows court considered relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pantalion, 957 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2008) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects but not discretionary sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994) (open guilty plea does not bar appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2017) (recognition of retained right to challenge discretionary sentencing after open plea)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 2007) (what constitutes a substantial question assessed case-by-case)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (substantial question exists when sentence contravenes Sentencing Code or fundamental norms)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (Rule 2119(f) must show how sentence violates sentencing scheme or fundamental norms)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary sentencing claims waived if no post-sentence motion filed)
- Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. 2004) (same rule on waiver for discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013) (bald claim that court failed to consider factors challenges weight, not substantial question)