Com. v. Zuback, S., Jr.
923 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 31, 2017Background
- Appellant Samuel A. Zuback, Jr. was previously sentenced (Oct. 28, 2013) to 60 months’ intermediate punishment for third-offense DUI: 60 days work release, 300 days GPS house arrest, 30 days intensive supervision with alcohol monitoring.
- Appellant was arrested for a fourth DUI in Centre County (Jan. 17, 2016) and pled guilty there (Mar. 23, 2016).
- Clinton County Adult Probation filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s intermediate punishment; the Clinton County court revoked it (Apr. 4, 2016) and ordered a presentence investigation.
- On resentencing (May 2, 2016) after revocation, the court imposed 642 days to 48 months incarceration at the county facility, credited 360 days plus ~3½ months, ordered consecutive service to the Centre County sentence, and allowed immediate eligibility for work release.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking modification to time-served and appealed from the revocation sentence, arguing the court failed to properly weigh compliance, financial satisfaction, family/education hardship, and misapprehension about the Centre County sentence length.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to adequately consider Appellant’s compliance with his original intermediate punishment | Zuback: He complied with incarceration and 300 days of GPS house arrest without incident; this mitigation warranted time-served | Court: Sentence after revocation was discretionary within statutory limits following a new DUI conviction | No substantial question; appellate court declined to review discretionary challenge |
| Whether the court failed to consider payment of financial obligations | Zuback: He satisfied financial obligations tied to original sentence, supporting leniency | Court: Payment does not create a substantial question when sentence falls within limits | No substantial question; claim insufficient for review |
| Whether the court erred by not accounting for fiancée’s high‑risk pregnancy and family hardship | Zuback: Imprisonment would unduly burden fiancée nearing delivery | Court: Consideration of such personal hardships does not raise a substantial question where sentence is lawful and within limits | No substantial question; claim rejects substitution of appellate judgment for trial court |
| Whether the court misunderstood Centre County sentence length and failed to consider rehabilitative needs/education | Zuback: Trial court thought Centre County imposed 60 days, when it was 90; also claims sentence ignores rehabilitation/education | Court: Appellant conceded sentence within statutory range; alleging lack of rehabilitative focus does not state a sentencing-code violation | No substantial question; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-aspect review requires meeting four-prong test)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements required to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines "substantial question" standard)
- Commonwealth v. Hanson, 856 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to consider mitigating factors generally does not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en banc) (requests to reweigh factors are not substantial questions)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2008) (claims about court failing to consider rehabilitation/education do not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (probation-revocation sentence within guidelines does not present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Coss, 695 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 1997) (manifestly excessive claims fail to raise substantial question when within statutory limits)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellant must identify the sentencing-code provision and fundamental norm violated to present a substantial question)