Commonwealth v. Flowers
149 A.3d 867
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Michael A. Flowers pleaded guilty to four counts of theft by unlawful taking and was placed in State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) after evaluation; remaining charges were withdrawn.
- Flowers was expelled from SIP for repeated drug-use and disciplinary violations; court revoked SIP and resentenced him on November 9, 2015 to an aggregate 4–10 years’ incarceration plus six years’ probation.
- Flowers filed a motion for reconsideration (denied by order entered Dec. 2, 2015) and appealed on Dec. 28, 2015; the Commonwealth and court noted the appeal-timeliness issue.
- The sentencing transcript shows neither the trial court nor counsel correctly advised Flowers of the proper 30-day appeal deadline for sentences following SIP revocation; the court’s December order likewise mis-stated the appeal period.
- The trial court did not state on the record at sentencing the reasons for the new sentence as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(D)(2); the court later explained its reasons in a Rule 1925 opinion.
- The Superior Court found the late appeal excused due to a ‘‘breakdown in the court’s operation’’ (incorrect advice on deadlines) but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing because the court failed to articulate reasons on the record at the time of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Flowers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Appeal untimely (filed >30 days after sentence) | Late filing excused due to court misstatement of appeal deadline (breakdown) | Appeal not quashed; court error excused late filing (breakdown of process) |
| Requirement to state reasons on record after SIP revocation | Argued trial court sufficiently explained reasons (in Rule 1925 opinion and by referencing violations) | Trial court failed to state reasons at sentencing; remand needed to explain basis for lengthier sentences | Vacated and remanded: sentencing court must state reasons in open court per §9721(b)/Pa.R.Crim.P.708(D)(2) |
| Appropriateness/excessiveness of new sentence | Sentences were justified by SIP violation and defendant’s history | Sentences excessive, punitive for failing SIP, inconsistent with guidelines; record insufficient to assess | Not reached (unripe) because remand for proper on-the-record articulation required |
| Whether SIP revocation sentence is analogous to probation revocation | SIP treated analogously to probation for review purposes | N/A (Flowers did not challenge revocation itself) | Confirmed: standard of review for revocation/resentencing is same as for probation revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discusses prerequisites for appellate review of discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (court misstatement of appeal period can constitute breakdown excusing untimely appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2001) (similar principle regarding breakdown in the court’s operation)
- Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559 (Pa. Super. 2010) (treats SIP as analogous to probation for revocation/resentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requires on-the-record statement of reasons when resentencing after revocation; failure warrants vacatur/remand)