Com. v. Riggins
Decision Date | 17 August 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 40,40 |
Citation | 474 Pa. 115,377 A.2d 140 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert Clyde RIGGINS, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
William C. Haynes, Asst. Public Defender, Arlene R. Popkin, Craig Currie, Philadelphia, for appellant.
D. Richard Eckman, Dist. Atty., James R. Leonard, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Joe C. Madenspacher, Lancaster, for appellee.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
Appellant was arrested for possession of 53.9 grams (approximately 1.9 ounces) of marijuana. After a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. 1 He was sentenced to serve two to five years imprisonment, fined $100 and ordered to pay the costs of prosecution. Appellant appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Riggins, 232 Pa.Super. 32, 332 A.2d 521 (1974) (4-3) (separate dissenting opinions were filed by Hoffman, Cercone and Spaeth, JJ.). We granted allocatur. 2
Appellant contends that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing because the trial court did not state its reasons for the particular sentence imposed. 3 We agree. We therefore vacate judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
After the jury returned its verdict of guilty, appellant's counsel informed the court that appellant was waiving his right to file motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The trial court then proceeded to sentence appellant. The trial court did not request a presentence report. 4
During the trial, testimony established that appellant was 21 years old, married and the father of three young children. He had been employed at a carwash, but was laid off a month before trial when the carwash was closed for repairs. Appellant had no prior criminal record.
During sentencing, the following colloquy occurred:
"THE COURT: Can I see the Indictment, please.
(Whereupon, the Indictment was presented to the Court at this point.)
As was brought out at the trial, he is twenty-one years old. He is married. He is not currently working because of the place he was employed at had to undergo repairs.
Other than that, I have nothing to add.
Now, this is classified under Classification Number One.
You say that the only question is whether this is classified as a narcotic drug, and Schedule One includes marijuana. Of course, Schedule One includes opium and any derivatives of it.
All right, he has been indicted and found guilty of Section 30.
All right, I am going to sentence him under Section 30[(f)(2)]. 5
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * The sentence of the Court is that you pay to the Commonwealth for the use of the County a fine of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), pay the costs of prosecution and undergo imprisonment in the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon for a period of not less than two nor more than five years.
Stand committed."
Appellant asserts that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing because the trial court did not state its reasons on the record for the imposition of its sentence. We agree. When a trial court imposes judgment of sentence, its reasons for the imposition of sentence should appear on the record.
A. Pennsylvania has a system of indeterminate sentencing, 6 which carries with it "an implicit adoption of the philosophy of individual sentencing." Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976). This system of indeterminate sentencing "necessitates the granting of broad discretion to the trial judge, who must determine, among the sentencing alternatives and the range of permissible penalties, the proper sentence to be imposed." Id. [474 Pa. 123] at 130, 351 A.2d at 656. 7 The exercise of this discretion is "one of the most important, and most easily abused powers vested in the trial court." Id. at 131, 351 A.2d at 657. 8 Traditionally, appellate courts have left sentences undisturbed on appeal because of the view that the trial court is in a far better position to weigh the factors involved in sentencing determinations. Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. at 129, 351 A.2d at 656; Coburn, Disparity in Sentences and Appellate Review of Sentencing, 25 Rutgers L.Rev. 207, 218 (1971). 9
"We have . . . granted the sentencer almost totally unlimited, unstructured and unreviewable discretion to impose punishment after conviction."
This "unlimited, unstructured and unreviewable discretion" has been the focus of much critical commentary of our criminal justice system. 10
The sentencing decision is of enormous consequence. It is the culmination of an elaborate and complicated system of procedural and substantive law whose ultimate rationale is the efficient and reliable identification of persons who have committed criminal harms. At the sentencing stage, the decision must finally be made as to what sanction should be imposed, a decision whose total social impact is equalled only by its import to the individual, whose life and liberty are at stake. The American Bar Association, Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (Approved Draft, 1968) notes quite accurately the very delicate balance required in sentencing:
The American Bar Association has noted that the absence of standards for determining the proper sentence to impose is particularly discordant in a system that is otherwise committed to the rule of law:
American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences, Introduction at 1-2 (Approved Draft, 1968); see McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 252-87, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1489-1508, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting) 12.
Appellant maintains that requiring the trial court to state its reasons for the imposition of sentence will help rationalize the sentencing process. In certain contexts, courts have recognized the value of requiring a statement of reasons for the imposition of a particular sentence to prevent improper considerations from affecting the sentence imposed. In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), the defendant received an increased sentence following a new trial. He then alleged that the increased sentence violated due process because it penalized him for attempting to vindicate his constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Perry
... ... 257, 643 A.2d 136 (1994) (en banc) , allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 683, 652 A.2d 1327 (1994)); Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 546 A.2d 12 (1988) (disapproving Superior Court line of authority interpreting landmark sentencing decisions in Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976) ) ... 15. My dissenting opinion in White responded to the White majority's actual holding on the question of the automobile exception—a holding that never even purported ... ...
-
Com. v. Simmons
... ... 293] the prosecutor by encouraging him to state his position on the record, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c) provides for prosecutorial control of the accused's motion to waive trial by jury without any provision for the prosecutor's accountability through judicial review. Compare Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977) (trial court must place on record its reasons for imposition of particular sentence) ... 500 Pa. at 361, 456 A.2d at 1329 (Emphasis added) ... Even this Court in Commonwealth v. Kindness, 247 Pa.Super. 99, 371 A.2d 1346 (1977), ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Garvin
... ... [ 2 ] I note that the majority opinion did not ... treat appellant's other issues dealing with excessiveness ... of sentence, a Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977) ... violation and a merger question ... ...
-
Com. v. Garvin
... ... Story, 476 Pa. 391, 412, 383 A.2d 155, 164 (1978) ... 1 Of course, this case itself, were allocatur granted, would provide a forum for such a change ... 2 I note that the majority opinion did not treat appellant's other issues dealing with excessiveness of sentence, a Riggins ... ...