Case Title: Com. v. Maly

Citation: 384 Pa. Super. 369, 558 A.2d 877

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
384 Pa. Superior Ct. 369 (1989) 558 A.2d 877 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John David MALY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued November 1, 1988. Filed May 3, 1989. *370 Carmela R.M. Presogna, Assistant Public Defender, Erie, for appellant. Ernest J. Disantis, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for Com., appellee. Before BROSKY, ROWLEY and MONTEMURO, JJ. ROWLEY, Judge: John David Maly appeals from a judgment of sentence of 12 to 28 years incarceration imposed following his plea of nolo contendre to a charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and pleas of guilty to charges of indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors. Appellant had originally been sentenced to 10 to 25 years incarceration for these same crimes. That sentence *371 was vacated by a panel of this Court and the case was remanded for resentencing. 375 Pa.Super. 619, 541 A.2d 30. Appellant's first challenge is to the legality of his sentence. He argues that because the trial court has failed to affirmatively state on the record any new conduct on the part of appellant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding which would justify the increase in his second sentence, he has been exposed to double jeopardy, as defined by North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1969). The trial court had stated at the second sentencing proceeding that the increased sentence was based upon a psychological evaluation which was performed upon appellant following the remand by this court. Appellant contends that the conclusions made in that report echoed the trial court's prior conclusions at the original sentencing proceeding. Therefore, he argues, the trial court imposed a more severe sentence based upon identical information and conclusions regarding his character and rehabilitative needs, violating the proscription against double jeopardy. We agree. In North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, the Supreme Court considered the question of what constitutional limitations there are upon the power of a judge to impose a longer prison sentence on remand than the defendant originally received at the first sentencing proceeding. The Court held that while a trial judge is not constitutionally precluded from imposing a sentence of greater duration, that longer sentence can only be imposed if it is clear that the longer sentence is not the result of judicial vindictiveness. The court recognized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that a convicted defendant not be penalized for successfully seeking an appeal and being awarded a new trial. "[T]he very threat inherent in the existence of such a punitive policy would, with respect to those still in prison, serve to chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights." Id., 395 U.S. at 724, 89 S. Ct. at 2080, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 668 (citation omitted). The court then set *372 forth the following standard to be applied to test the validity of a sentence of longer duration imposed following a successful appeal: Id., 395 U.S. at 726, 89 S. Ct. at 2081, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 670 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has reevaluated its position since Pearce. In Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 106 S. Ct. 976, 89 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1986), the Court retreated from its previous position that only evidence of conduct occurring after the first sentencing proceeding was relevant and supportive of a longer second sentence. "Restricting justifications for a sentence increase to only events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings could in some circumstances lead to absurd results." Id., 475 U.S. at 141, 106 S. Ct. at 980-81, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 112 (emphasis in the original). The Court went on to describe a situation in which a defendant is convicted and sentenced on the basis of a burglary, apparently his first offense, to a short prison term, but that following his successful appeal and a second conviction after retrial, is found to have been in fact a convicted murderer using an alias. The Court concluded that none of the policy considerations underlying Pearce (i.e., judicial vindictiveness) would require that the defendant receive the same light sentence and summarized the meaning of Pearce as follows: McCullough, supra, 475 U.S. at 142-143, 106 S. Ct. at 981, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 113 (emphasis in the original). Although the decision in McCullough broadens the focus of relevant information concerning the defendant's behavior and characteristics, that decision does not effect the application of Pearce to the instant case. Because this case involves the same trial judge imposing a second, more severe sentence, the presumption of judicial vindictiveness applies. Compare McCullough, (defendant sentenced by jury following first conviction and by trial judge following second conviction); and Commonwealth v. Mikesell, 371 Pa.Super. 209, 537 A.2d 1372 (1988) (defendant tried before, and sentenced by, different judge than the one who had imposed the original sentence). Therefore, the trial court was required to affirmatively set forth on the record objective information concerning identifiable conduct which justified appellant's enhanced sentence. See U.S. v. Solomon, 825 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 108 S. Ct. 782, 98 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1988) (failure of district court to affirmatively *374 state reasons for enhanced sentence required appellate court to vacate the sentence and remand for new sentencing). The trial court states in its opinion that it was relying upon the psychological report prepared by Dr. McKinney in imposing the enhanced sentence. Appellant argues that the trial court could not properly base the longer second sentence upon that report because the report was nothing more than a restatement of the trial court's considerations and conclusions which were stated at the previous sentencing proceeding. At the first sentencing proceeding, the trial court stated the following with regard to appellant's character and rehabilitative needs: (Sentencing Proceeding of February 24, 1987, pp. 17-23.) At the second sentencing proceeding, the trial court made extensive reference to the psychological report prepared by Dr. McKinney in support of the enhanced sentence: (Sentencing Proceeding of February 16, 1988, pp. 27-31.) It is readily apparent in reviewing the record of the two sentencing proceedings that the trial court did not base its second more severe sentence upon any new information or concerns from the psychological report. The trial court's belief concerning appellant's character and rehabilitative *378 needs remained the same. The mere fact that the trial court was in possession of a psychological evaluation in the second proceeding which supported the trial court's previous conclusions and beliefs was not new information to the trial court concerning appellant's "life, health, habits, conduct and mental and moral propensities." Pearce, supra, 395 U.S. at 723, 89 S. Ct. at 2079, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 668, quoting Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 245, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 1082, 93 L. Ed. 1337 (1949). See U.S. v. Carrasquillo, 732 F.2d 1160 (3d Cir. 1984) (defendant's continued drug addiction insufficient to support district court's imposition of enhanced sentence). We cannot accept the Commonwealth's contention that because the psychological evaluation was performed after appellant served one and one-half years of his sentence and was directly related to his character and rehabilitative needs that it supports the trial court's imposition of a longer sentence. Although the report was relevant, it did not provide the trial court any information which the trial court had not considered in imposing the initial sentence. Without evidence of identifiable conduct which was not previously considered by the trial court, [see e.g., McCullough, supra; U.S. v. Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474 (10th Cir. 1988) (enhanced sentence upheld where district court considered defendant's subsequent criminal conduct); and Commonwealth v. Sinwell, 223 Pa.Super. 544, 302 A.2d 400 (1973) (enhanced sentence upheld where trial court considered defendant's prison break following his second conviction)] a second sentence imposing a greater penalty than initially imposed cannot stand. Based upon the record of the instant case, we are constrained to vacate the judgment and again remand for resentencing. Because of our disposition of appellant's first issue, it is unnecessary to consider any of the other issues raised. Judgment of sentence reversed and case remanded. Jurisdiction is not retained.