Com. v. Wilson, W.
661 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Wesley A. Wilson pled guilty in 2008 to criminal trespass, simple assault, and criminal mischief for violently assaulting his girlfriend and others; restitution of $4,280.79 was ordered.
- Court imposed 11½ to 23 months' incarceration on the trespass count, followed by three years' probation; other counts carried concurrent probation terms.
- While on probation, Wilson had repeated violations: positive drug tests, failure to report to probation, failure to pay restitution, and new domestic-related offenses leading to additional convictions and probation revocations.
- After a 2014 conviction for simple assault and recklessly endangering another person, the court revoked his probation and resentenced him to 18–48 months' imprisonment (state sentence).
- Wilson filed a motion for reconsideration and appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider mandatory sentencing criteria, especially his rehabilitative needs under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by revoking probation and imposing 18–48 months without considering rehabilitative needs under § 9721(b) | Wilson: court failed to consider mandatory sentencing criteria and his rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth/Trial court: court did consider rehabilitation but prior county sentences and supervision failed; confinement necessary to protect public and vindicate court authority | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered rehabilitation but concluded confinement was necessary to protect public and vindicate authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for probation-revocation sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (scope of review includes discretionary sentencing challenges after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa.) (limitations and standards for sentences after probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (requirement to raise discretionary-sentencing claim and substantial-question standard)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (requirements for Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (failure to consider rehabilitative needs can present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (claim that court sentenced based solely on offense seriousness raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (a within-statutory sentence can still present an inappropriate-sentencing claim)
- Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (cases discussing appropriateness review)