Commonwealth v. Schutzues
54 A.3d 86
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Schut-zues pled guilty to rape, one count of IDSI, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of minors for sexual assaults on a six-year-old girl and related misconduct over four years.
- Original sentence on 10/9/2001: aggregate 3½ to 7 years of incarceration followed by seven years of probation; no further penalties on other counts.
- Less than six months into probation, Schut-zues violated by contacting his young nieces.
- May 1, 2007 hearing: trial court imposed lengthy, consecutive sentences for rape, IDSI, endangering the welfare of a child, and corrupting a minor; this Court vacated the judgment for § 9771(c) noncompliance (Schutzeus I).
- February 9, 2010: new sentencing hearing; new sentences were vacated again (Schutzeus II) for illegal sentencing relating to IDSI, endangering a child, and corruption of minors; remanded for resentencing on the rape conviction.
- June 28, 2011: final sentencing order on appeal: 6 to 13 years for rape, consecutive 10 to 20 years for IDSI, and consecutive 2% to 5 years for endangering the welfare of a child and for corruption of minors; court affirmed over challenges to legality, excessiveness, and presentence credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VOP sentence violated § 9771(c) requirements. | Schut-zues contends court failed to make § 9771(c) findings; argues sentence illegal. | Schutzeus relies on Foster and Mathews to claim illegality of sentence for noncompliance with § 9771(c). | Waived; court treats § 9771(c) as discretionary, not illegal-sentence issue at this stage. |
| Whether the post-revocation sentence is manifestly excessive given the nature of the violation. | Schut-zues’ minor violation and rehabilitation history warrant less severe punishment. | Court properly considered factors and length was appropriate to vindicate authority. | No, sentence not manifestly excessive; court weighed factors and noted danger of contact with minors. |
| Whether Schutzues is entitled to presentence confinement credit under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760. | Credits should apply to total sentence. | Credits limited; not automatic due to split sentences and statutory maximum. | Credit determination remains within discretion; final holding supports the sentence as within statutory maximum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mathews, 486 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 1984) (threshold § 9771(c) limits; requires consideration of Sentencing Code factors)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretionary aspects; § 9771(c) considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretion in applying § 9771(c) acknowledged)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (§ 9771(c) application as discretionary issue)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (Rule 708(2) relevance; contemporaneous objection procedure)