Commonwealth v. Tobin
89 A.3d 663
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Scott Tobin pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (PWID) 20 marijuana plants; other charges (conspiracy, corruption of minors, REAP, possession, paraphernalia) were withdrawn per plea.
- Sentenced to 15 to 60 months (aggravated range) after PSI and sentencing memoranda; Tobin filed a post-sentence motion challenging the aggravated-range sentence as unsupported.
- At sentencing the court cited lack of remorse and that Tobin operated a marijuana grow in the presence of his three children; Tobin contended the court effectively relied on nolle prossed charges (corruption of minors, REAP).
- Tobin appealed claiming (1) discretionary-abuse by considering allegations underlying nolle prossed counts, and (2) due process/illegal-sentence because the court enhanced sentence based on nolle prossed allegations.
- The panel analyzed precedent distinguishing improper reliance on nolle prossed charges (Stewart) from mere reference to harmful facts in the record (Miller), and also identified an independent legal error: the court failed to impose a RRRI minimum though Tobin was eligible under Hansley.
- Court held sentencing did not expressly rely on the nolle prossed charges and denied the illegality/due process claim, but vacated and remanded to impose an RRRI minimum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by considering allegations forming nolle prossed charges when imposing aggravated sentence | Tobin: sentencing enhanced based on allegations that were nolle prossed; enhancement violates fairness (Stewart) | Commonwealth: court relied on PSI and facts (children present, lack of remorse), not on nolle prossed charges | No abuse: reference to children and danger came from record/PSI and did not equal reliance on nolle prossed counts |
| Whether sentence is illegal / violates due process because it was enhanced by consideration of nolle prossed allegations | Tobin: due process violated when court enhances sentence using nolle prossed allegations | Commonwealth: court considered permissible factors (public safety, lack of remorse, children present) drawn from record | Not an illegal-sentence claim; due-process label insufficient to convert claim to legality; claim fails on merits |
| Whether court erred by failing to impose RRRI minimum on eligible offender | Tobin (raised by court sua sponte): sentencing court incorrectly concluded Tobin ineligible for RRRI because of alleged mandatory minimum | Commonwealth: had argued mandatory minimum made RRRI inapplicable (court relied on that) | Court found legal error under Hansley; vacated sentence and remanded for imposition of RRRI minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sentence enhanced expressly because of nolle prossed charges is manifest abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 965 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (reference to harmful facts in record does not necessarily show reliance on nolle prossed charges)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012) (RRRI may be imposed despite defendant being subject to certain drug mandatory minimums; clarifies RRRI eligibility)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to impose RRRI minimum treated as an illegal-sentence issue correctable sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural preservation required to challenge discretionary aspects of sentence)