Commonwealth v. Finnecy
135 A.3d 1028
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- James Finnecy, with multiple prior convictions and repeated probation violations, was sentenced after probation revocation to an aggregate term of 12.5 to 25 years' imprisonment.
- He had been earlier sentenced in 2010, released on parole in 2014, then arrested as an absconder and admitted to multiple parole violations at a Gagnon II hearing.
- The trial court relied on a PSI prepared for a March 2014 sentencing (seven months prior), victim statements, and the court’s familiarity with Finnecy’s history when resentencing on October 7, 2014.
- The court found Finnecy ineligible for RRRI (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive) based on a prior resisting-arrest conviction, treating that offense as demonstrating violent behavior.
- Finnecy appealed raising three issues: (1) the court erred by not ordering a new PSI or explaining why none was needed, (2) the court erred in finding him ineligible for RRRI due to resisting arrest, and (3) the sentence was unduly punitive/biased and failed to individualize sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Finnecy) | Defendant's Argument (Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to order/update PSI before sentencing | Court violated Pa. R. Crim. P. 702(A)(2)(a) by not ordering a PSI or explaining on the record; resentencing required | Court relied on a PSI prepared seven months earlier, victim statements, and its familiarity with defendant; no change in circumstances shown | Affirmed — seven-month-old PSI plus record familiarity sufficed; no abuse of discretion |
| RRRI ineligibility based on resisting arrest | Resisting arrest is nonviolent and thus does not bar RRRI eligibility | Resisting arrest necessarily involves conduct that creates substantial risk of injury or requires substantial force and therefore demonstrates violent behavior under 61 Pa.C.S. § 4503(1) | Affirmed — resisting arrest counts as violent behavior for RRRI purposes (Chester framework; Stinson persuasive) |
| Discretionary aspects: sentence was vindictive, unindividualized, manifestly unreasonable | Sentencing driven by frustration; crimes were nonviolent and addiction-related; court failed to tailor sentence to rehabilitation needs | Court had current PSI, explained reasons, considered rehabilitation and repeated supervision failures; incarceration warranted to protect public and vindicate authority | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence justified by record and PSI |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial must order or explain dispensing with PSI to guard against recidivism and inform individualized sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PSI not required in all cases; court must be apprised of comprehensive information)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2014) (Section 4503(1) broadly covers "violent behavior" beyond enumerated offenses for RRRI ineligibility)
- United States v. Stinson, 592 F.3d 460 (3d Cir. 2010) (Pennsylvania resisting-arrest conviction is a categorical "crime of violence" because it poses serious potential risk of physical injury)