J-S42010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
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, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2016
Because I find the trial court provided sufficient reasons on the record
for the probation revocation sentence it imposed, I must respectfully dissent.
A review of the sentencing hearing reveals Pace’s probation officer
provided undisputed testimony regarding the numerous ways Pace violated
the term of his probation. Neither Pace, nor his counsel, offered any
mitigating evidence, save for documentation of his completion of the
Batterers’ Intervention Program, which the trial court acknowledged. In
imposing sentence, the court stated the following:
Mr. Pace, you have been involved in continuing criminal activity.
All of your crimes include violence. I have seen no evidence of
rehabilitation.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S42010-16
N.T., 5/14/2015, at 5. I find this statement, coupled with the testimony of
Pace’s probation officer, sufficiently demonstrates the court’s consideration
of all the factors listed in Section 9721. See Crump, supra, 995 A.2d at
1283 (“A sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its
reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statute in
question, but the record as a whole must reflect the sentencing court’s
consideration of the facts of the crime and character of the offender.”).
Accordingly, I dissent.
-2-