J-S42010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANDRE PACE,
Appellant No. 932 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0012497-2013, CP-02-CR-0012502-
2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2016
Appellant, Andre Pace, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
on May 14, 2015, following revocation of his probation. After careful review,
we vacate and remand.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as
follows:
[Appellant] was charged with one (1) count of Simple Assault at
[two informations]. He appeared before [the court of common
pleas] on February 5, 2014 and, pursuant to a plea agreement
with the Commonwealth, pled guilty to both charges and was
immediately sentenced to a term of probation of two (2) years.
No Post-Sentence Motions were filed and no direct appeal was
taken.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S42010-16
On May 14, 2015, [Appellant] appeared before [the court
of common pleas] for a probation violation hearing. Upon
finding that [Appellant] had been convicted of a new offense and
also had a number of technical violations, [the court of common
pleas] revoked [Appellant’s] probation and imposed two (2)
consecutive terms of imprisonment of one (1) to three (3) years.
A timely Motion to Reconsider Sentence was filed and was
denied on May 18, 2015. This timely appeal followed.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/14/16, at 2 (internal footnote omitted).
Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court fail to adequately consider and apply all of the
relevant sentencing criteria under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)
(sentencing generally) and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9725 (total
confinement) when it failed to order a pre-sentence investigative
report or give reasons for its omission, and the hearing did not
serve as an adequate substitute?
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (full capitalization omitted).
Appellant’s claim relates to the discretionary aspects of his probation
revocation sentence. We note that “[t]he right to appellate review of the
discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute.” Commonwealth v.
Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa. Super. 2014). Rather, where an appellant
challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence, the appeal should be
considered a petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. W.H.M.,
932 A.2d 155, 163 (Pa. Super. 2007).1
____________________________________________
1
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of an appellant’s sentence in an
appeal following a revocation of probation are permitted. Commonwealth
v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013).
-2-
J-S42010-16
As we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.
Super. 2010):
An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his
sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a
four-part test:
[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to
determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely
notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2)
whether the issue was properly preserved at
sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [708]; (3) whether
appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial
question that the sentence appealed from is not
appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9781(b).
Id. at 170 (citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.
Super. 2006)). The determination of whether there is a substantial question
is made on a case-by-case basis, and this Court will grant the appeal only
when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing
judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie
the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912–
913 (Pa. Super. 2000).
Herein, Appellant brought a timely appeal, and he included in his
appellate brief the necessary separate concise statement of the reasons
relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). In his
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant argues that he has raised three
-3-
J-S42010-16
substantial questions: 1) the trial court did not adequately consider
“relevant sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public, the
gravity of the underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs of the
Appellant,” as 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) requires; 2) the trial court did not order
a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) or compensate for its absence
and thereby failed to consider Appellant’s character and background; and 3)
the trial court relied on an improper factor–unrelated cases–in enhancing the
punishment in this case. Appellant’s Brief at 15-16.
In his post-sentence motion, however, Appellant made the following
claims:
5. The Court failed to realize the rehabilitative needs of
[Appellant].
6. The Court failed to take [Appellant’s] age into account.
7. The Court failed to realize [Appellant] did not get
arrested on another domestic case.
8. The Court failed to realize [Appellant] did complete
the Batterers’ Intervention Program.
Motion to Reconsider Sentence, 5/15/15, at 2.
As this Court has explained: “issues challenging the discretionary
aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by
presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings.
Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is
waived.” Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532, 538 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Because Appellant failed to raise his issues regarding the lack of a PSI report
-4-
J-S42010-16
or the sentencing court’s reliance on an unrelated case in resentencing
Appellant, either at sentencing or in his post-sentence motion, those issues
are waived. Thus, Appellant has preserved only his claim that the
sentencing court failed to properly consider the relevant sentencing criteria
required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).
We next determine whether Appellant raises a substantial question
requiring us to review the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed by
the trial court. The trial court’s failure to offer specific reasons for the
sentence that comport with the considerations required in section 9721(b)
raises a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d
135, 143 (Pa. Super. 2011). Because Appellant has presented a substantial
question, we proceed with our analysis.
The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is
vested within the sound discretion of the probation revocation court, which,
absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. Sierra,
752 A.2d at 913. On review, we determine the validity of the probation
revocation proceedings and the authority of the probation revocation court
to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the
initial sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(b); Commonwealth v.MacGregor,
912 A.2d 315, 317 (Pa. Super. 2006). When imposing a sentence of total
confinement after a probation revocation, the sentencing court must
-5-
J-S42010-16
consider the factors set forth in Sections 9771(c)2 and 9721(b) of the
Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735, 739 (Pa.
Super. 2006).
While parts of § 9721(b) do not govern revocation proceedings,
as our sentencing guidelines are not required to be consulted in
such instances, see 204 Pa.Code. § 303.1(b), other provisions of
that section do apply. For example, the sentencing court must
“follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should
call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the
public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on
the life of the victim and on the community, and the
rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). In
addition, in all cases where the court “resentences an offender
following revocation of probation, county intermediate
punishment or State intermediate punishment or resentences
following remand, the court shall make as a part of the record,
and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement
of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed.” Id. Failure
to comply with these provisions “shall be grounds for vacating
____________________________________________
2
The following limitations apply when a sentence of total confinement is
being considered following revocation of probation:
(c) Limitation on sentence of total confinement.—The court
shall not impose a sentence of total confinement upon revocation
unless it finds that:
(1) the defendant has been convicted of another
crime; or
(2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is
likely that he will commit another crime if he is not
imprisoned; or
(3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the
authority of the court.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c).
-6-
J-S42010-16
the sentence or resentence and resentencing the defendant.”
Id.
Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1040-1041. Following the revocation of probation, a
probation revocation court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its
reasons for imposing a sentence of total confinement, but the record as a
whole must reflect the probation revocation court’s consideration of the facts
of the crime and character of the offender. Commonwealth v. Crump, 995
A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Following careful review of the scant five-page probation violation
sentencing transcript, we find that the court failed to demonstrate that it
sufficiently considered the criteria enunciated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) in
imposing Appellant’s sentence. The court failed to discuss in any detail the
need for protecting the public, the impact the crime had on the community
and the victim, and the character and rehabilitative needs of Appellant. It is
undisputed that the judge did not consult a PSI.3 Furthermore, the trial
court failed to adequately articulate on the record the reasons for revoking
Appellant’s probation and imposing the aforementioned sentence.
As a result, without sufficient information regarding the factors
outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), we are unable to determine whether the
____________________________________________
3
“Our Supreme Court has determined that where the trial court is informed
by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all
appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court
has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.”
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-7-
J-S42010-16
sentence imposed upon Appellant after revocation of his probation is
“consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it
relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the
rehabilitative needs of [Appellant].” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). Thus, we are
constrained to remand the matter to the trial court for a revocation hearing
and resentencing that is consistent with the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. §
9721(b). See Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735, 740 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (trial court’s failure to explain how sentence imposed following
probation revocation met Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, as required under
42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), resulted in this Court’s vacation of Appellant’s
sentence and remand for resentencing).
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Justice Fitzgerald joins the Memorandum.
Judge Ott files a Dissenting Statement.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/28/2016
-8-
J-S42010-16
-9-