Com. v. Taylor, R.
1936 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2016Background
- On December 6, 2012, Robert Levelle Taylor pled guilty to one count each of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3)) and terroristic threats (18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1)) pursuant to a negotiated plea.
- The court imposed two years probation on the simple assault conviction and no further penalty on the terroristic threats conviction.
- No direct appeal was filed from the original sentence.
- After a probation violation finding on November 12, 2015, the court sentenced Taylor to 1½ to 3 years’ imprisonment on the simple assault conviction and again no additional penalty on the terroristic threats count.
- Taylor moved for reconsideration (denied), then appealed; he challenged (1) the legality of the 1½–3 year sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum for a second-degree misdemeanor, and (2) the discretionary aspects of the revocation sentence as manifestly excessive.
- The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the 1½–3 year term exceeded the statutory maximum for a second-degree misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1½–3 year post-revocation sentence for simple assault exceeded the lawful maximum | Taylor: sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a 2nd-degree misdemeanor (max 2 years) | Commonwealth: concurrence that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum | Vacated and remanded for resentencing because 3 years > statutory maximum for a 2nd-degree misdemeanor |
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / manifestly excessive (discretionary aspects) | Taylor: court failed to consider required sentencing factors (42 Pa.C.S. § 9721), guidelines, mental health, rehabilitation, deterrence | Commonwealth: (not addressed on merits because legality dispositive) | Not reached; Superior Court declined to address discretionary-appeal claim because remand for illegality required |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (sentence exceeding lawful maximum implicates legality of sentence)
- Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality claims are non-waivable)
- Orie, 88 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for legality questions is plenary)
- Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (upon probation revocation, available sanctions are limited to those available at original sentencing)
- Williams, 997 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2010) (a revocation court cannot re-sentence a previously final, below-guideline/without-punishment sentence after the modification period has passed)