Commonwealth v. Ball
166 A.3d 367
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Dawn Marie Ball (Appellee) committed multiple incidents at SCI Muncy: spitting, kicking, and screaming at corrections officers between 2012–2014, resulting in charges including aggravated harassment by a prisoner and aggravated assault.
- Ball pled guilty to five counts of aggravated harassment by a prisoner and one count of aggravated assault; sentencing occurred December 1, 2015.
- Trial court appointed Dr. Terri Calvert to evaluate Ball; Calvert concluded Ball suffers from PTSD and other trauma-related disorders exacerbated by confinement in the RHU and that incarceration would worsen her condition and not protect the public.
- Conflicting evaluations existed (Torrance and Norristown reports suggested manipulation and need for secure confinement), but the court questioned these conflicts during sentencing and credited Calvert’s findings.
- The court imposed an aggregate five years of probation (later modified to add six months electronic monitoring) — a downward departure from guideline incarceration ranges (individual guidelines 21–27 months; aggregate if consecutive 126–162 months).
- Commonwealth appealed, arguing the sentence was excessively lenient, ignored aggravating factors (criminal history, disciplinary record, ongoing offenses), and improperly emphasized mental health over public protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence below mitigated guideline range was an abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: Court unreasonably deviated from guideline ranges given repeated assaults and criminal history | Ball: Sentence justified by expert evidence that incarceration and RHU exacerbate her mental illness and probation better serves rehabilitation and public safety | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; record supports mental-health-based departure and sentence not unreasonable |
| Whether probation without incarceration was improper | Commonwealth: Probation fails to protect public and rewards misconduct; incarceration warranted | Ball: Probation permits treatment unavailable in RHU; incarceration would worsen dangerousness | Affirmed: Court reasonably found probation more protective given mental-health evidence and revocation option exists |
| Whether no additional penalty was improper for aggravated assault conviction | Commonwealth: Aggravated assault is most serious charge and merited punishment | Ball: Conduct tied to mental illness and did not actually cause serious harm; treatment preferable | Affirmed: Court credited expert testimony and found no abuse in imposing no further penalty |
| Whether court overemphasized rehabilitation/mental health to detriment of sentencing norms | Commonwealth: Court gave undue weight to mental-health evidence, disregarded prior evaluations and disciplinary history | Ball: Court considered conflicting evidence, questioned experts, and still reasonably credited Calvert | Affirmed: Court examined conflicts, articulated reasons, and law permits such individualized weighting |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defines substantial question for appellate review of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Commonwealth may raise substantial question alleging excessively lenient sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing discretion and §9781 factors)
- Commonwealth v. Childs, 664 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 1995) (vacated probationary sentence where record did not support leniency and public protection ignored)
- Commonwealth v. Sims, 728 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 1999) (vacated below-guideline sentence where leniency relied on unreliable victim statements and inadequate reasoning)
- Commonwealth v. Masip, 567 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 1989) (reversed overly lenient sentence unsupported by PSI and record)
- Commonwealth v. Felix, 539 A.2d 371 (Pa. Super. 1988) (reversed lenient sentence where court ignored evidence undermining its rationale)
- Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 911 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2006) (vacated sentence for failure to acknowledge guidelines and insufficient explanation for downward deviation)