390 A.2d 1297 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1978
Appellant challenges his sentence as manifestly excessive. For the reasons which follow, we remand for resentencing.
On October 20, 1976, appellant pleaded guilty to theft,
Pennsylvania’s system of individualized sentencing is codified in the Sentencing Code
In Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977), our Supreme Court again addressed the issue of how to conform the sentencing process to Pennsylvania’s requirements of individual sentencing. The Court held that “the
In Commonwealth v. Wertz, 252 Pa.Super. 584, 384 A.2d 933 (1978), our Court applied the lessons of Martin and Riggins. In Wertz, appellant contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Because the record did not contain an articulation of reasons in support of the sentencing decision, our Court could not determine whether the lower court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we remanded for resentencing pursuant to Riggins:
In the instant case, the record is devoid of a statement of reasons for the imposition of the particular sentence chosen. Consequently, our Court cannot undertake the kind of meaningful appellate review of the sentencing process contemplated by our Supreme Court in Riggins. See also Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85, 379 A.2d 884 (1977). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand to afford the trial court an opportunity to resentence appellant and to include a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.
Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.
. The Crimes Code, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502.
. The Crimes Code, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925.
. The Sentencing Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, added, Act of December 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, effective in 90 days; 18 Pa.C.S. § 1301 et seq.
. The Sentencing Code, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 1321(b).
. The result in Riggins, Kostka, and Wertz, supra, forecloses a remand for the sole purpose of permitting the lower court to articulate the reasons for its sentence.