 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Philipp4/14/1998
1 Sentencing Guideline Standards (b). We find the similarities between revocations of probation, parole and ARD and revocation of intermediate punishment sufficient to conclude the sentencing guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed as a result of intermediate punishment revocation. In further support of our determination, we point out that section 303.1 was revised and said revisions came into effect thirteen (13) days prior to appellant's sentence. Effective June 13, 1997, 204 Pa.Code § 303.1(b) provides as follows:
(b) The sentencing guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed as a result of the following: accelerated rehabilitative Disposition; Disposition in lieu of trial; direct or indirect contempt of court; violations of protection from abuse orders; revocation of probation, intermediate punishment or parole.
(Emphasis added.) Based upon the foregoing, it is clear the guidelines were not intended to and do not apply to appellant's sentence. Appellant's arguments of their misapplication are, therefore, without merit. Sentencing alternatives such as intermediate punishment exist to enable Judges to impose the guideline sentence reflective of the rehabilitative needs of certain non-violent offenders while maintaining public safety. Intermediate punishment is not, however, the solution for all substance abuse offenders. Appellant received the benefit of the guidelines at his initial sentencing and through his own actions has demonstrated he needs a sentence more stringent than that provided in the guidelines.
The remaining issue for our review is whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing the 1 to 2 year term of imprisonment without adequate explanation therefor. The sentencing court obviously need not explain deviation from the guidelines where they do not apply. However, the court is required pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1409(C)(2), supra, to state on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court explained on the record that it had considered the following factors prior to imposing sentence:
the pre-sentence investigation report; appellant's educational, family and work history; statements made on appellant's behalf by appellant's family, counsel and appellant himself; and appellant's alcohol abuse history. (S.T., 6/26/97, pp. 13-15.) This was appellant's fourth DUI offense and as such is upgraded from a second degree misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, supra, (e) Penalty. Appellant's offense has a statutory limit of five years as a first degree misdemeanor. 18 Pa.C.S. § 1104(1) Sentence of imprisonment for misdemeanors. As appellant's 1 to 2 year term of imprisonment is clearly within this statutory limit, there was no erroneous imposition of sentence. Appellant's sentence reflects the nature of the offense committed, his proclivity towards alcohol abuse, his refusal to seek the necessary treatment and the needs of society.
Upon review of the June 26, 1997 sentencing transcripts, it is apparent the court acted within its discretion in assessing the relevant factors and fashioned its sentence based upon the relevant evidence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|