Com. v. Tedrow, S.
569 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Shawn Tedrow pleaded nolo contendere to indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7)) in January 2011 and was placed on 24 months probation with special conditions (reporting, no contact with victim/family/minors unless supervised, complete mental-health/sex-offender evaluation and recommended treatment).
- The trial court previously found Tedrow to be a sexually violent predator; motions for reconsideration were denied.
- Over several years the Commonwealth filed multiple petitions alleging Tedrow repeatedly failed to complete mandated sex-offender treatment and violated drug-abstinence conditions; each led to revocation and reinstatement of probation with treatment conditions attached.
- At the February 27, 2017 revocation hearing, the probation officer testified Tedrow admitted recent marijuana use and had been unsuccessfully discharged from sex-offender treatment for missing consecutive appointments; treatment in county jail was unavailable, and state prison would provide treatment opportunities.
- The court revoked probation and sentenced Tedrow to a state sentence of 8 months to 5 years to ensure completion of treatment and to vindicate the court’s authority; post-sentence reconsideration was denied and Tedrow appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence following probation revocation was an abuse of discretion because it contradicted the probation officer’s recommendation | Commonwealth: sentencing court may impose any sentence available at original sentencing and pursued revocation to secure treatment and court authority | Tedrow: sentence was manifestly unreasonable; court should have followed probation officer’s recommendation for county (lesser) sentence | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; judge may reject PO recommendation and impose state incarceration to ensure treatment and vindicate court authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of review for probation-revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Raybuck, 915 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question for discretionary-sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 583 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court need not accept probation officer’s recommendation)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sentencing after revocation vested in court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (same principle on court’s sentencing discretion after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellant must show inconsistency with Sentencing Code or fundamental norms to raise substantial question)