Commonwealth v. Riggins
Decision Date | 17 August 1977 |
Docket Number | 40. |
Citation | 377 A.2d 140,474 Pa. 115 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert Clyde RIGGINS, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 14, 1977.
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. I
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."
II
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.
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:
"Among the ironies of the law, there are many surrounding the manner in which sentences are imposed in the majority of our jurisdictions. One of the most striking involves a comparison of the methods for determining guilt and the methods for determining sentence. The guilt-determining process is hedged in with many rules of evidence; with many tight procedural rules, and, most importantly for present purposes, with a carefully structured system of appellate review designed to ferret out the slightest error. Yet in the vast majority of criminal convictions in this country 90% in some jurisdictions; 70% in others the issue of guilt alone is not disputed.
What is disputed and, in many more than the guilty-plea cases alone, what is the only real issue at stake, is the question of the appropriate punishment. But by comparison to the care with which the less-frequent problem of guilt is resolved, the protections in most jurisdictions surrounding the determination of sentence are indeed miniscule. . . . It is not an overstatement to say of these jurisdictions that in no other area of our law does one man exercise such unrestricted power. " [11]
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 (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Riggins
... Page 140 ... 377 A.2d 140 ... 474 Pa. 115 ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ... Robert Clyde RIGGINS, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Argued April 14, 1977 ... Decided Aug. 17, 1977 ... Page 141 ... [474 Pa. 117] William C. Haynes, Asst. Public Defender, Arlene R. Popkin, Craig Currie, Philadelphia, for ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Megella
... ... Further, the records of the original trial and of these ... hearings clearly establish that full reports on ... appellant's record and background were available and used ... by the trial court in its sentencing procedure. See ... Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 ... Order and ... judgment of the lower court affirmed ... HOFFMAN and ... SPAETH, JJ., concur in the result ... CERCONE, ... President Judge, files a concurring opinion ... JACOBS, ... former President Judge, did not participate ... ...
-
Com. v. Megella
...on appellant's record and background were available and used by the trial court in its sentencing procedure. See Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977). Order and judgment of the lower court HOFFMAN and SPAETH, JJ., concur in the result. CERCONE, President Judge, files a ......
-
Com. v. Green
...a previously-entered judgment of sentence of the same term and remanded the record for proceedings consistent with Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977). Appellant contends that on resentencing the court abused its discretion. We affirm. Sentence here was imposed well af......