J-S28027-24 

 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 v. 

EDWARD MICHAEL CARHARDT 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 805 EDA 2024 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 9, 2024 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-45-CR-0002094-2013 

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and LANE, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 

 Edward Michael Carhardt (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered following his violation of probation. After careful 

consideration, we affirm. 

 The trial court detailed the lengthy history underlying this appeal as 

follows: 

In early 2012, Appellant, a resident of New Jersey with no ties to 

Monroe County, was charged with two counts of Burglary, a felony 

of the first degree[, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502]; two counts of Criminal 

Trespass, a felony of the second degree[, id. § 3503]; two counts 

of Theft by Unlawful Taking, a felony of the third degree[, id. § 

3921]; and two counts of Criminal Mischief, a summary offense, 

[id. § 3304,] for burglarizing two occupied homes in [Monroe 

County]. The burglaries occurred four and five months after 

Appellant was released from prison in New Jersey for committing 

similar crimes there. 

Unfortunately, [Appellant’s] thefts and burglaries continued [after 

the Monroe County offenses]. Disposition of the charges in 
J-S28027-24 

- 2 - 

[Appellant’s Pennsylvania] case was delayed while Appellant was 

again incarcerated in New Jersey for similar crimes. 

On February 13, 2019, [in the instant Monroe County case,] 

Appellant pled guilty to one count of Criminal Trespass, a felony 

of the second degree, and one count of Theft by Unlawful Taking, 

a felony of the third degree. A pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) 

was conducted by [the] Probation Office and a report [was] 

prepared for sentencing.... 

On May 28, 2019, Appellant was sentenced to a time served 

sentence of 28 to 56 months’ incarceration on the Theft 

conviction,[FN] plus a consecutive period of probation of four years 

on the Criminal Trespass Conviction, and ordered to pay 

restitution of $34,497.66. At the time, Appellant was classified as 

a Repeat Felon for sentencing purposes as the result of 34 adult 

arrests[,] which led to 16 convictions. (See PSI Report). 

[FN] Defendant was given time credit of 4 years, 9 months, and 5 

days, a period in excess of the maximum sentence imposed on 

the Theft conviction. 

After sentence was imposed, Appellant’s probation was 

transferred to his home state of New Jersey. In June of 2022, 

New Jersey returned supervision, reporting that Appellant had 

[multiple times] violated his probation by testing positive for 

cocaine three times, subsequently providing a diluted urine drug 

screen sample, and then twice refusing to submit to drug screens. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/24, at 1-2 (footnote in original, citations added). 

 On June 17, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a petition alleging Appellant 

violated his probation. 

On September 8, 2022, Appellant was found in violation of his 

probation and resentenced to two years of intensive probation. As 

special conditions of that probation, Appellant was required to[] 

“sign full releases in order for the supervising authority to obtain 

information regarding his treatment, as well as drug screen 

results, [and] shall continue in weekly treatment as recommended 

in his drug and alcohol assessment until successfully discharged 
J-S28027-24 

- 3 - 

and shall maintain gainful employment.” (Order entered 

September 9, 2022). Probation was again transferred to New 

Jersey. 

On September 18, 2022, Appellant filed a motion seeking 

reconsideration and modification of the resentence. A hearing on 

the motion was scheduled for November 17, 2022.... 

Id. at 3. The trial court ultimately denied reconsideration. Appellant did not 

appeal. 

 Appellant subsequently violated his probation on multiple occasions. 

The State of New Jersey returned supervision of Appellant to the Pennsylvania 

trial court, 

reporting that Appellant was disruptive and argumentative with 

his probation officer to the point that the sheriff’s office had to be 

called, tested positive for cocaine, twice gave diluted urine drug 

screen samples, did not continue in weekly treatment, and did 

not, as instructed by his probation officer, undergo a drug and 

alcohol evaluation. 

Accordingly, the Commonwealth filed a second petition for 

violation of probation. The petition was set to be heard at the 

previously-scheduled November 17, 2022 hearing. 

Id. 

 And so began the odyssey leading to the instant appeal. Because of a 

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Appellant’s counsel petitioned 

for and was granted leave to withdraw. The trial court continued the probation 

violation hearing to allow Appellant time to retain new counsel. 

 The trial court granted Appellant another continuance to allow new 

counsel to become familiar with the case. The trial court also granted a 

continuance to allow Appellant to undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation, and 
J-S28027-24 

- 4 - 

to explore treatment options as an alternative to incarceration. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 5/8/24, at 4. 

 Subsequently, at the probation violation hearing on February 17, 2023, 

Appellant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent admission to 

violating the terms of his probation. Resentencing was set for a 

future date[,] so that Appellant and his attorney would be able to 

present a plan for supervision and treatment instead of reincarceration, which plan was likely to include Appellant’s 

participation in Teen Challenge. Appellant was informed that the 

[c]ourt would consider any plan he presented, but all resentencing 

options were on the table. (N.T., 2/17/2023, pp. 5-10, 21-26, 31-

33). 

After several defense continuances of the resentencing hearing, 

Appellant’s attorney filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw[,] 

citing irreconcilable attorney-client differences regarding strategy 

for the resentencing. (Motion to Withdraw, filed April 6, 2023). 

On May 8, 2023, after a hearing, counsel was granted leave to 

withdraw and the resentencing hearing was continued until late 

June [2023]. 

Id. at 5. 

Appellant retained a new attorney, who requested continuances on 

Appellant’s behalf. Eventually, the trial court scheduled Appellant’s 

resentencing for September 28, 2023. At the resentencing hearing, 

Appellant testified and his mother addressed the [trial court]. 

Defense counsel presented several documents relating to 

Appellant’s pre-violation efforts regarding [drug and alcohol] 

treatment and rehabilitation, presented argument, and asked that 

Appellant be resentenced to time served plus probation. (N.T., 

9/28/2023, pp. 8-19, 22-23). The attorney for the 

Commonwealth presented argument and asked for 30 to 60 

months’ incarceration, with eligibility for the State Drug Treatment 

Program (“SDTP”), pointing out that Appellant [originally] had 

been afforded a very favorable plea and sentence[,] and had 

violated probation twice. (Id. at 19-21). At the end of the 

hearing, [the trial court] resentenced Appellant to two to four 
J-S28027-24 

- 5 - 

years in a State Correctional Facility, followed by one year of 

probation, and deemed Appellant eligible for the SDTP. [The 

court] briefly summarized [its] reasons on the record, including 

references back to the discussions during the hearing at which 

Appellant admitted to violating probation for the second time. 

(Id. at 23-27; Judgment of sentence entered September 28, 

2023). 

Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion and an amended motion 

alleging that [the trial court] denied him the opportunity to 

address the [c]ourt before the resentence was imposed[,] and 

further erred by failing to properly weigh his efforts at drug 

treatment. (Amended Post Sentence Motion, filed October 6, 

2023). As a result, Appellant asked that [the trial court] modify 

the sentence “to impose a county sentence, and to grant 

[Appellant] parole directly into an inpatient rehabilitation center.” 

(Id. at ¶ 44). 

Id. at 5-6. The trial court granted reconsideration and directed Appellant to 

request a transcript of the prior hearing to facilitate review of his allocution 

issue. Trial Court Order, 10/6/23. 

The trial court described what next transpired: 

On February 9, 2024, ... the hearing on Appellant’s motion was 

convened. By the time the hearing was convened, the transcript 

of the September 28, 2023[,] resentencing hearing had been filed, 

although neither party had it in court. Appellant’s attorney 

[abandoned] the assertion that [Appellant] was denied the right 

of allocution. Instead, [counsel] characterized the reconsideration 

hearing as being convened to allow Appellant to allocute .... 

.... 

After providing a summary of the relevant procedural history, [the 

trial court] indicated that [it] would review the September 28, 

2023[,] hearing transcript, allow defense counsel to present 

documentary evidence he had identified, and permit Appellant to 

speak on his own behalf. ([N.T., 2/9/2024,] at 3-8). Surprisingly, 

when given the opportunity to address the [c]ourt, and despite 

prompts by both his attorney and the Court, Appellant stood 
J-S28027-24 

- 6 - 

silent. He said nothing and would not respond to either counsel 

or the [c]ourt for more than three minutes. (Id. at 8-9, 11-12). 

Then, at the point when the [c]ourt was about to impose sentence, 

Appellant interrupted, asked for, and was given the opportunity to 

address the [c]ourt. He did not offer anything new. (Id. at 10-

20). In addition, at Appellant’s request, his wife was permitted to 

address the [c]ourt. (Id. at 21-22). 

At the conclusion of the hearing, [the trial court] issued an order 

vacating [its] prior judgment of resentence so that [the court] 

could correct an error pertaining to Appellant’s eligibility for the 

[Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI)] program. [The 

court] then re-sentenced Appellant to the same two to four years 

[in prison], followed by one year of probation, that [was] 

previously imposed, and deemed him eligible for the SDTP. (Order 

entered February 9, 2024; N.T., 2/9/2024, pp. 25-26). [The trial 

court] attempted to state [its] reasoning on the record, but [was] 

twice interrupted by Appellant. As a result, [the court was] able 

to provide only a summary.[FN] (Id. at 23-28). 

[FN] Appellant’s verbal interruptions were captured by the twodimensional record. However, Appellant’s tone, body language, 

facial expressions, and demeanor, [] demonstrated even louder 

tha[n] his words that Appellant was not interested in the trial 

court’s] explanation.... 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/24, at 6-8 (some footnotes omitted; remaining 

footnote in original). Appellant timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court 

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

 Appellant presents the following issues for our review: 

1) Is the [trial] court’s 2-4 year sentence inappropriate under 

Pennsylvania law, and inconsistent with the fundamental norms of 

the sentencing process on revocation of a defendant’s probation? 

2) Did the [trial] court misapply governing law under 42 

[Pa.C.S.A. §] 9771, per Pennsylvania law, providing that 

imprisonment should be imposed for a violation of probation only 

where (1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; (2) 
J-S28027-24 

- 7 - 

the defendant’s behavior suggests a probability of future offenses; 

or (3) a sentence of total confinement is necessary to uphold the 

authority of the court? 

Appellant’s Brief at 3. 

 Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We 

consider a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence to be a petition 

for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not 

absolute. Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 916 (Pa. Super. 

2010). Before we can consider a discretionary sentencing challenge, we 

conduct a four-part analysis determining 

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of 

appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was 

properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and 

modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s 

brief has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether 

there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is 

not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [see] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9781(b). 

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some 

citations omitted). 

 Instantly, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration and 

a timely notice of appeal. Although Appellant failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) 

statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal, the Commonwealth 

did not object to this omission. See Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 

530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“[W]hen the appellant has not included a Rule 

2119(f) statement and the appellee has not objected, this Court may ignore 
J-S28027-24 

- 8 - 

the omission and determine if there is a substantial question that the sentence 

imposed was not appropriate[.]”). 

 Appellant claims his sentence of total confinement, following a technical 

violation of probation, constitutes an excessive sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 

9. Appellant’s issue raises a substantial question. Commonwealth v. 

Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 624 (Pa. 2002) (recognizing a claim of an excessive 

sentence may raise a substantial question). Accordingly, we will address 

Appellant’s sentencing challenge. 

 Although Appellant presents two issues in his statement of questions 

involved, he combines those issues in the argument section of his brief. 

Accordingly, we address them together. 

 Appellant claims that the trial court’s revocation sentence failed to follow 

the governing law 

under which a court may impose a sentence of total confinement 

... only if it finds that the defendant has been convicted of another 

crime; the defendant’s behavior suggests a probability of future 

offenses; or a sentence of total confinement is necessary to 

uphold the authority of the court.... 

Appellant’s Brief at 11 (citations omitted). Appellant argues his violations, 

including his refusal to submit to a drug screen, were based on his drug 

addiction issues. Id. Appellant asserts he was not convicted of another crime, 

and the trial court failed to “make any findings” that his behavior suggested a 

probability of future offenses. Id. Appellant further contends the trial court 
J-S28027-24 

- 9 - 

failed to render a finding that a sentence of total incarceration was necessary 

to vindicate the court’s authority. Id. 

 Appellant submits the trial court misapplied the sentencing guidelines 

by imposing a 2-4 year prison term for a positive drug test, “in light of the 

evidence showing [Appellant’s] good faith albeit unsuccessful attempts to 

overcome his longtime addition.” Id. According to Appellant, an extension of 

his term of probation or other probationary restrictions “would have been 

consistent with [] Pennsylvania law[.]” Id. 

 Appellant argues that incarceration is not warranted, as he has made 

“substantial efforts towards rehabilitation – including completing a substance 

abuse evaluation.” Id. at 14. Appellant directs our attention to his 

employment as a prep cook and sous chef in New Jersey. Id. Appellant also 

has completed a drug and alcohol treatment program while incarcerated. Id. 

Appellant asserts he 

was honest with the [trial] court about the triggers that had led 

to his unfortunate though unintended relapse: he had a drink with 

an old friend, who later died from drug use himself. This poor 

choice to drink led to a relapse of drug (cocaine) usage for 

[Appellant]. [Appellant] expressed remorse to the judge and 

promised to strive not to repeat his behavior.... 

Id. at 15. Appellant points out his mother and wife were present in the 

courtroom, “showing family support.” Id. 

 Appellant asserts his behavior does not suggest probable future 

offenses, since he was not convicted of an additional crime. Id. at 16. 

Additionally, Appellant contends there was no evidence confinement would 
J-S28027-24 

- 10 - 

uphold the authority of the court. Id. Appellant points out his underlying 

convictions were for theft, burglary and trespass. Id. at 17. According to 

Appellant, “[n]othing in the record showed that there was a ‘probability’ of 

future offenses of those types.” Id. Appellant argues his sentence is not 

commensurate with his violation of probation for a positive drug test. Id. 

 Our standard of review is well settled. 

The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation 

is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, 

absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. 

An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment — a 

sentencing court has not abused its discretion unless the record 

discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. 

Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280, 1283-84 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(citation omitted). 

In determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, the 

appellate court must give great weight to the sentencing court’s 

discretion, as he or she is in the best position to measure factors 

such as the nature of the crime, the defendant’s character, and 

the defendant’s display of remorse, defiance, or indifference. 

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted). 

 As this Court has stated, after revoking probation, a sentencing court 

may choose from any of the sentencing options that existed at the time of the 

original sentencing, including incarceration. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b). 

“[U]pon revocation [of probation] ... the trial court is limited only 

by the maximum sentence that it could have imposed originally at 

the time of the probationary sentence.” Commonwealth v. 

Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 365 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal quotation 
J-S28027-24 

- 11 - 

marks and citations omitted). However, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c) 

provides that once probation has been revoked, a sentence of total 

confinement may only be imposed if any of the following 

conditions exist: 

(1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or 

(2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely 

that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned; 

or 

(3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority 

of the court. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c). 

 “In addition, in all cases where the court resentences an 

offender following revocation of probation ... the court shall make 

as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time of 

sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence 

imposed[; f]ailure to comply with these provisions shall be 

grounds for vacating the sentence or resentence and resentencing 

the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 

1040-1041 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal quotations omitted); 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). “A trial 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.” [Commonwealth v.]

Crump, 995 A.2d [1280,] 1282-1283 [(Pa. Super. 2010)]. 

Colon, 102 A.3d at 1044. This Court has held, “[t]echnical [probation] 

violations can support revocation and a sentence of incarceration when such 

violations are flagrant and indicate [a resistance] to 

reform.” Commonwealth v. Carver, 923 A.2d 495, 498 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

Our review of the record discloses the trial court had the benefit of a 

PSI. “[W]here the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is 

presumed that the court is aware of all sentencing factors and considerations, 
J-S28027-24 

- 12 - 

and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be 

disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 

2009). 

At the resentencing hearing on September 28, 2023, Appellant’s counsel 

explained, 

[Appellant’s] violation, to which he admitted back in February[,] 

was that in approximately September and October of 2022, that 

he had submitted a positive urine test for cocaine, and that he 

additionally submitted dilute urine[ samples].... 

N.T., 9/28/23, at 9. Counsel asserted that Appellant had served almost 10 

months in prison for the positive cocaine test. Id. Counsel submitted to the 

trial court a report indicating Appellant did have negative drug tests, in 

addition to the positive test and “dilute urines.” Id. 

Counsel also presented psychotherapy progress notes from Appellant’s 

assessment and treatment program that spanned the summer and fall of 

2022. Id. at 11. In the notes, the therapist opined Appellant was making 

progress and exhibited substantial efforts towards his treatment goals. Id. 

Appellant testified at the hearing that prior to his violation, he worked 

as a prep cook and sous chef for the Crystal Springs Mineral Spa and Resort 

in New Jersey. Id. at 13. He traveled 26 miles each way to work at the 

resort. Id. Appellant confirmed that he attended a drug and alcohol 

treatment program in the Monroe County Jail. Id. at 14. He completed that 

program in January 2023. Id. Appellant testified that upon release from 
J-S28027-24 

- 13 - 

prison, he intends to seek drug treatment in a facility located 12 miles from 

his home. Id. at 15. 

Appellant explained his most recent relapse. Id. at 16. Specifically, 

Appellant claimed he 

had a drink with an old friend that I’ve known for ... almost 40 

years, and God rest his soul, he passed away 3 months ago from 

... drug use, and if it’s not enough to scare the ... living daylights 

out of you, ... I would never do that again. 

Id. 

On cross-examination, the Commonwealth reminded Appellant of his 

previous 34 arrests, 16 convictions and several probation violations. Id. at 

17. Nevertheless, Appellant asserted he could “complete probation 

successfully.” Id. Appellant testified regarding the support provided to him 

by his common-law wife of 30 years, his mother, his daughter, and his 

grandchildren. Id. 

Appellant acknowledged his most recent probation violation took place 

after he had received treatment. Id. at 18. Nevertheless, Appellant asserted, 

he would not “risk losing my family like this ever again.” Id. 

Appellant’s counsel asserted Appellant is “hardworking and he’s diligent 

with respect to that.” Id. at 19. The Commonwealth pointed out that 

Appellant’s last employment “is only the second job he’s ever had in his 

lifetime according to the PSI.” Id. 

At the close of the resentencing hearing, the trial court explained its 

reasons for imposing a sentence of total confinement: 
J-S28027-24 

- 14 - 

So I’m going to look at this the way we’re supposed to look at 

sentencing in Pennsylvania -- on an individual basis based on 

[Appellant’s] history, which is right now our best indicator of 

future behavior, and also some of the objective facts that are in 

the old PSI report[,] ... what I’ve heard[,] and what [Appellant] 

said [him]self. Considering all that, let me just say that the efforts 

that [Appellant] put in that [Appellant’s] attorney highlighted, I 

think are very good and positive[. H]owever, ... every single one 

of those documented efforts occurred before this most recent 

violation. That’s one. 

Number two, [Appellant’s criminal] history shows that [his] 

rehabilitative prospects, although [Appellant] might be doing 

[better] on a relative basis [] than [he] had in the past, are not 

very good. ... [T]here is nobody that could look at this record 

objectively and believe that another period of probation and 

community and county-level supervision is going to do either 

[Appellant] or society any good, and because of that, it’s not going 

to do [Appellant’s] family any good. It just hasn’t worked time 

after time after time. 

And so, just as in physical medicine, sometimes ... taking only half 

your prescription for penicillin can be worse than not taking any; 

it’s the same thing here. ... [T]he worse thing we could do for 

[Appellant] and for our community and for [Appellant’s] family is 

to undertreat [Appellant]. Everything that can be tried in New 

Jersey and other places ... and the criminal and penal justice 

system and the tools they have to try to address [Appellant’s] 

issues haven’t worked at any of those states, so we’re going to 

give the state [prison] system a try. There is the [STDP] the 

Commonwealth wants [Appellant] in.... 

N.T., 9/28/23, at 24-25. The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 

2-4 years. 

Appellant sought, and the trial court granted, reconsideration of his 

sentence. At the resentencing hearing on February 9, 2024, Appellant 

testified regarding his efforts at paying restitution for his underlying 

convictions. N.T., 2/9/24, at 14. Appellant pointed out that while on probation 
J-S28027-24 

- 15 - 

for the 37 months prior to the underlying violation, he never missed a 

probation appointment. Id. at 15. Appellant described his family 

relationships giving him motivation to reform. Id. at 16. Appellant again 

detailed his efforts and asked for a county sentence. Id. at 20. 

The trial court, however, relied on its prior reasons for imposing a 

sentence of total confinement. Id. at 23-26. The trial court vacated the prior 

resentencing order, and resentenced Appellant to 2-4 years in prison, but 

ordered that Appellant is eligible for the RRRI program. Id. at 36. 

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion, the trial court considered and rejected 

Appellant’s claim of an excessive sentence: 

As [the court’s] on-record statements over several hearings in this 

case show, after Appellant’s second probation revocation[, the 

trial court] imposed an incarceration resentence based on and 

after consideration of Appellant’s prior history; the PSI report; the 

facts and circumstances surrounding the underlying crime; 

Appellant’s actions, conduct, behaviors, and attitude while on 

probation, including multiple probation violations; Appellant’s 

rehabilitative prospects, including the fact that community-based 

supervision and treatment in his home state had been 

unsuccessful; public safety; the treatment records and reports 

presented during the revocation and resentencing proceedings; 

the arguments of counsel; and Appellant’s statements[,] as well 

as those of his wife and mother. 

Of significance: Appellant travelled to Monroe County, an area in 

which he has no ties, to commit the subject crimes. He did so 

only four months after being released from jail for the same 

criminal conduct. Resolution of this case was delayed while 

Appellant was subsequently incarcerated in New Jersey. 

Ultimately, Appellant was offered and entered a favorable plea and 

sentence. 

At the time he pled guilty and was initially sentenced, Appellant 

was a recidivist, and, for sentencing purposes, a Repeat Felon. He 
J-S28027-24 

- 16 - 

had amassed 34 adult arrests leading to 16 convictions[,] with 

several unreported or unknown dispositions. He had spent a 

significant portion of his adult life in jail. He had violated 

supervision in the past. Despite this record, Appellant was given 

a time-served sentence and probation so that he might, finally, 

address his criminogenic needs and addiction issues and also pay 

restitution. 

Appellant did not take advantage of the opportunity given to him. 

He violated the rules of probation on multiple occasions, continued 

to use drugs, and rebelled against supervision. After his first 

revocation, Appellant was given another opportunity on probation 

with specific conditions tailored to his history and demonstrated 

needs. Yet, he violated again. 

During the long wind-up to resentencing, Appellant initially 

indicated an understanding of the need for intensive long-term 

treatment – treatment that was long enough and strong enough 

to meet his individual[] needs – and asked for time in which to 

put together an alternative to incarceration that would provide 

both accountability and the proper measure of treatment. 

However, after an extended period, Appellant backed off that 

strategy, and ultimately asked [the trial court] to resentence him 

to probation[,] to be supervised by a department he claimed did 

not treat him properly[,] with community services that had not 

been successful in the past. The history of this case did not and 

does not support Appellant’s fallback request. 

Simply, despite his protestations to the contrary, [the trial court] 

did not resentence Appellant to incarceration merely because of a 

positive drug screen. (Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, ¶ 2). 

Rather, [the trial court] took into consideration and based the 

resentence on all relevant facts, circumstance[s] and history, 

especially Appellant’s multiple violations of probation while on 

supervision in this case, his rehabilitative needs, his recidivistic 

behaviors, his criminogenic needs, his low rehabilitative prospects 

in the community[,] where supervision and treatment had not 

been successful, and the applicable law. While Appellant was not 

convicted of a new crime while on probation, his history and 

conduct clearly indicated a likelihood that he would commit 

another crime if not imprisoned, and the sentence imposed was 

needed to vindicate the authority of the court. 
J-S28027-24 

- 17 - 

In short, the resentence [the trial court] imposed was supported 

by the facts, the law, and Appellant’s history, conduct, behaviors, 

and multiple probation violations.... 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/7/24, at 11-13. 

Upon review, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing 

discretion in resentencing Appellant to total confinement, following Appellant’s 

violation of probation. As such, Appellant’s challenge to his sentence as 

excessive merits no relief. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Date: 9/6/2024