Com. v. Watson, C.
Com. v. Watson, C. No. 3081 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- On April 4, 2015, plainclothes officers observed Christopher Watson sell two packets of heroin and found additional packets and cash in his car; he was arrested.
- Watson entered an open guilty plea on January 27, 2016 to Possession with Intent to Deliver and related possession charges.
- At sentencing the parties agreed Watson’s offense gravity score (6) and prior record score (5) produced a guidelines range of 21–27 months plus or minus six months.
- The trial court imposed an upward-departure sentence of 3 to 6 years’ incarceration followed by 5 years’ probation, citing Watson’s lengthy and violent criminal history, ongoing drug abuse, PSI information, and the futility of prior county/probation sentences.
- Watson filed a timely post-sentence motion and appealed, arguing the court relied on his criminal history (already accounted for in the guidelines) as the sole reason for the upward departure.
- The Superior Court found Watson waived part of his claim (failure to preserve argument that prior record was sole reason), but addressed whether the court gave adequate reasons for the upward departure and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing an upward departure without adequate reasons | Watson argued the court exceeded the guidelines without adequate explanation and relied solely on his prior record, which the guidelines already accounted for | Commonwealth/trial court argued the court provided reasons on the record (criminal history plus PSI, continuous drug abuse, futility of prior sanctions) | Court held the record contained adequate, contemporaneous reasons; sentence affirmed |
| Whether claim was preserved for appeal | Watson contended his post-sentence motion preserved the sentencing challenge | Trial court/Commonwealth pointed to the motion’s insufficiency to preserve the specific claim that prior record was the sole factor | Court found the specific preservation lacking and that aspect was waived |
| Whether a contemporaneous statement is required when departing from guidelines | Watson argued the court failed to state sufficient reasons on the record | Court/Commonwealth relied on Widmer and related precedent requiring written/oral reasons for departure | Court applied precedent: record statements satisfied the contemporaneous-reason requirement |
| Whether a court may rely on factors already in the guidelines when departing | Watson argued using prior convictions (already in the guidelines) as a basis is improper | Commonwealth cited precedent allowing prior convictions to supplement other extraneous factors | Court held a trial court may use prior convictions if they supplement other extraneous sentencing information; here, other factors existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (procedural requirements to challenge discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (factors to consider before reviewing discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (procedural preservation for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court must state reasons for guideline deviations)
- Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (requirement for factual basis and specific reasons for deviation)
- Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate review of sentencing explanation sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Wagner, 702 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sentencing explanation standards)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 667 A.2d 215 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (contemporaneous written/oral statement requirement when departing from guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (presumption that judge considered PSI information)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (judge’s awareness of PSI and sentencing considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial courts may use prior convictions as supplemental to other extraneous information)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (limitations on relying solely on guideline factors for departure)