Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21

Pasture pleaded guilty (Alford plea) to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors for sexual abuse of a child; originally sentenced to a mitigated-range term with substantial probation and reporting requirements.
While on probation, Pasture submitted positive drug tests for marijuana and alcohol beginning in 2007, entered outpatient treatment, relapsed after being shot in 2008, and admitted violating probation.
At a February 12, 2009 revocation hearing the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Pasture to 2½–5 years’ incarceration (followed by probation), a sentence within statutory bounds and based on the court’s prior familiarity with Pasture and the initial PSI.
The Superior Court vacated the revocation sentence, finding it excessive, criticizing the trial court for failing to state sufficient reasons on the record, and faulting the court for not ordering a new PSI.
The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reviewed whether the Superior Court properly applied this Court’s precedents (Perry and Walls) and whether it gave appropriate deference to the trial court’s revocation sentencing decision.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the Superior Court misapplied sentencing principles, failed to afford due deference to the revocation court, and reinstated the original revocation sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation sentence was excessive and inadequately explained	Pasture: sentence was excessive for a technical violation; trial court failed to state adequate reasons and should have ordered a new PSI	Commonwealth/Trial court: sentence within original statutory limits; judge had prior familiarity and PSI from initial sentencing; reasons were sufficient given revocation context	Court: Superior Court erred—trial judge’s prior knowledge and initial PSI meant the revocation sentence need not repeat extensive findings; sentence reinstated
Whether failure to order a new PSI required vacatur	Pasture: lack of updated PSI deprived the court of information to impose a fully informed sentence	Commonwealth: no absolute requirement to order a new PSI where judge has adequate prior information and heard revocation testimony; Pasture did not object below	Court: no mandatory new PSI here; trial court had sufficient information; remand for PSI unnecessary
Proper standard of appellate review for revocation sentences	Pasture: Superior Court reweighed factors and found sentence manifestly excessive	Commonwealth: appellate courts must defer to trial courts per Perry/Walls; vacatur only for manifest unreasonableness or clear error	Court: Superior Court failed to apply deferential standard required by Perry/Walls and improperly substituted its judgment for the revocation court’s discretion

Perry v. Commonwealth, 612 Pa. 557, 32 A.3d 232 (Pa. 2011) (appellate courts must apply deferential review to sentencing and avoid substituting their judgment for the trial court)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 592 Pa. 557, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court has institutional advantage; trial court familiarity with defendant carries weight on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to revocation sentencing; revocation court has broader discretion)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (explaining Alford pleas where defendant maintains innocence but concedes sufficient evidence for conviction)