J-S37037-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHRYSTAL BREWINGTON

Appellant No. 3016 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 22, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000306-2012,

CP-09-0003069-2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2015

Chrystal Brewington appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following the revocation of 

her probation. Upon review, we affirm. 

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case 

as follows:

In 2012 [Brewington] entered guilty pleas in four cases, 

numbers 306-2012, 317-2012, 3069-2012, and 2226-2012. In 

306-2012, [Brewington] was charged with false alarms to 

agencies of public safety, simple assault, resisting arrest, and 

disorderly conduct – making unreasonable noise, disorderly 

conduct – creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, 

and public drunkenness and similar misconduct. On March 7, 

2012, she entered a guilty plea to those offenses and sentencing 

was deferred. In 317-2012, [Brewington] was initially charged 

with use/possession of drug paraphernalia, public drunkenness 

and similar misconduct, and disorderly conduct – creating a 

hazardous or physically offensive condition. The Commonwealth 

thereafter withdrew the disorderly conduct charge. On March 7, 
J-S37037-15

- 2 -

2012, [Brewington] entered a guilty plea to the remaining 

offenses. Sentencing was deferred. In 3069-2012, 

[Brewington] was charged with simple assault and disorderly 

conduct-engaging in fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous 

behavior. On June 26, 2012 she entered a guilty plea to those 

offenses. Sentencing was deferred. In 2226-2012, 

[Brewington] was initially charged with possessing instruments 

of crime, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, 

unauthorized use of automobiles and other vehicles, criminal 

mischief, disorderly conduct – engaging in fighting, threatening, 

violent or tumultuous behavior, and reckless driving. The 

Commonwealth thereafter withdrew the theft and receiving 

stolen property charges. On June 26, 2012, [Brewington] 

entered a guilty plea to the remaining offenses. Sentencing was 

deferred.

On August 17, 2012, [Brewington] stood for sentencing in all 

four cases. In case number 306-2012, the sentencing guideline 

ranges for the lead offenses are: mitigated- ~; standard – RS-9; 

aggravated – 12. [Brewington] was sentenced to a term of 

probation of five years. In case number 317-2012, the 

sentencing guideline ranges for the lead offenses are: mitigated 

- ~; standard – RS-2; aggravated – 5. [Brewington] was 

sentenced to a term of probation of one year. On case number 

3069-2012, the sentencing guidelines for the lead offenses are: 

mitigated - ~; standard – RS-12; aggravated – 12. 

[Brewington] was sentenced to a term of probation of two years. 

As a condition of her probations, [Brewington] was ordered to 

continue in mental health and drug and alcohol treatment. On 

case number 2226-2012, the sentencing guidelines for the lead 

offense set forth the following range of sentences: mitigated –

RS; standard – 3-14; aggravated – 17. [Brewington] was 

sentenced to time served to twenty-three months with 

immediate parole. All sentences were run concurrent to one 

another. 

On June 23, 2014, a probation violation hearing was held in case 

numbers 306-2012 and 3069-2012 as a result of [Brewington]’s 

drug use, failure to take medications as directed, failure to 

comply with mental health treatment, multiple police contacts 

alleging criminal behavior against an elderly individual and 

reports of her driving without a license. [Brewington] agreed 

that she was in violation of her probations. It was ordered that 

she continue on probation. After that violation hearing, 

[Brewington] absconded [supervision]. A warrant was issued for 
J-S37037-15

- 3 -

her arrest on July 2, 2014. On July 15, 2014, a hearing was 

held and [Brewington] was released on recognizance pending 

her probation violation hearing. On August 11, 2014, 

Brewington appeared before Honorable Diane E. Gibbons and 

was found in violation of her probation on both cases. At that 

hearing, it was the recommendation of Adult Probation and 

Parole that [Brewington] be found in violation of her probations, 

that her probations be revoked and that she be resentenced to 

eighteen months to thirty-six months to be served in a State 

Correctional Facility four months on case number 306-2012 and 

to a consecutive term of incarceration of six months to twentyfour months on case number 3069-2012. Judge Gibbons 

deferred sentence for sixty days and ordered Brewington to 

attend Penndel Mental Health, take all medications, have no 

contact with victim, not to drive, attend all appointments, and 

meet all prior conditions. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/12/15, at 1-4 (footnotes omitted). 

During her sixty-day sentence deferral, Brewington failed to take her 

medications, failed to provide the required residence information and was 

once again arrested by the Bristol Police. On September 12, 2014, she was 

taken into police custody, after running around a picnic, naked, in front of a 

hundred adults and children. She also broke the windshield of a woman’s 

car and a teen boy’s headphones. She was charged with two counts of open 

lewdness1and one count of criminal mischief.2

On September 22, 2014, Judge Gibbons sentenced Brewington to an 

aggregate sentence of two to five years in a state correctional facility. 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 5901.

2

 18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2).
J-S37037-15

- 4 -

Brewington filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. 

Brewington filed a timely notice of appeal that same day. She filed a timely 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on November 12, 2014. 

On appeal, Brewington presents two issues for our review:

1. Whether it was a violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 to impose a 

sentence of total confinement for technical violations of 

probation; and

2. Whether an aggregate sentence of 24 to 60 months was 

manifestly excessive for technical violations of probation?

Appellants’ Brief, at 4.

These claims implicate the discretionary aspects of Brewington’s 

sentence, which are not appealable as of right. Rather, an appellant 

challenging the sentencing court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s 

jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test. Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 

A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011).

We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (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, 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, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).

Id. at 532, citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 

2006). An appellate court will find a “substantial question” and review the 

decision of the trial court only where an aggrieved party can articulate clear 

reasons why the sentence imposed by the trial court compromises the 
J-S37037-15

- 5 -

sentencing scheme as a whole. Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 

17 (Pa. 1987).

Here, Brewington has preserved her claim in her motion for 

reconsideration, and filed a timely notice of appeal. Brewington has also 

included in her brief a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See

Appellant’s Brief at 11. Moreover, Brewington’s claim that the trial court 

sentenced her to a term of total confinement in excess of her original 

sentence based solely on a technical violation raises a substantial question 

for our review. See Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. 

Super. 2010) (“The imposition of a sentence of total confinement after the 

revocation of probation for a technical violation, and not a new criminal 

offense, implicates the ‘fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing 

process.’”); Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa. Super. 

2000); see also Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1252 (Pa. 

Super. 2006) (“[A] claim that a particular probation revocation sentence is 

excessive in light of its underlying technical violations can present a question 

that we should review.”). 

Brewington argues that the court did not provide 

reasons on the record pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 to justify total 

confinement. Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c), a court may sentence a 

defendant to total confinement subsequent to revocation of probation if any 

of the following conditions exist:

(1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or
J-S37037-15

- 6 -

(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. § 9771(c)(1)-(3). 

Brewington asserts that since she was not convicted of a crime at her 

violation hearing, there was no evidence that her conduct was indicative that 

she would commit another crime or was the sentence necessary to vindicate 

the authority of the court. However, at the sentencing hearing, the 

Commonwealth presented testimony from Brewington’s probation officer, 

Ellyn H. Forquer, detailing violations and difficulties during Brewington’s 

sixty-day sentencing deferral: 

On August 15th, 2014 Miss Brewington failed to provide proof of 

application of residence and was given an extension from [my] 

supervisor and she continued to fail to provide verification. On 

September 12, 2014, on-call Officer Hearn received a call from 

Officer Ed O’Brien of Bristol Township Police. Miss Brewington 

was in their custody due to the fact she was running around at a 

picnic naked in front of a hundred adults and children. She 

broke the windshield of a woman’s car and a teenager’s 

headphones. She was charged with two counts of lewdness and 

criminal mischief. On September 2nd, 2014 the Children & Youth 

case worker reported that the father of Miss Brewington’s son 

called her and stated Miss Brewington showed up to the 

residence on September 1 at 1:00 o’clock in the morning, which 

is a violation of her curfew. September 5th, 2015 while in 

custody pending this hearing Miss Brewington incurred three 

class one misconducts for disobeying a direct order, insolence, 

and abusive language to staff.

Sentencing Hearing, 9/22/14 at 11-13.
J-S37037-15

- 7 -

In light of the foregoing, Honorable Diane E. Gibbons concluded that 

probation was ineffective in rehabilitating Brewington. At the sentencing 

hearing, Judge Gibbons was clear about her reasoning for sentencing 

Brewington to a state correctional facility:

I find that we have exhausted all available resources in the 

community and we do not have the necessary resources at 

Bucks County Correctional Facility in order to deal with what has 

been an ongoing and extreme problem, and that only the 

resources that are available to address the circumstances that 

we have – that we are attempting to deal with on the County 

level are only available in the State Correctional Facility.

Sentencing Hearing, 9/22/14, at 22-23. 

Judge Gibbons’ finding satisfies the requirement under section 9771 

(c)(2). Sentencing was originally deferred on Brewington’s probation 

violations to give her one last opportunity to demonstrate that she could 

comply with the conditions of her probation and treatment. See Violation of 

Probation Hearing, 8/11/14, at 21-25. During that time, Brewington was rearrested, clearly demonstrating that “it is likely [s]he will commit another 

crime if [s]he is not imprisoned.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c)(2). The trial court 

therefore properly revoked Brewington’s probation and imposed a sentence 

of total confinement. The sentence imposed was necessary to prevent 

Brewington from continuing to endanger herself and others, is in accordance 

with the dictates of section 9771(c), and did not otherwise constitute an 

abuse of discretion. 
J-S37037-15

- 8 -

In her second issue on appeal, Brewington contends that an aggregate

sentence of 24 to 60 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive for 

technical violations of probation. Brewington argues that one of her 

technical violations, failure to take her mental health medication, occurred 

because she was pregnant.3 Additionally, Brewington asserts that because 

she served almost two years on probation without a violation, the aggregate 

sentence was manifestly excessive and should be vacated and remanded for 

resentencing. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10. 

Upon revoking probation, a sentencing court may choose from any of 

the sentencing options that existed at the time of the original sentencing, 

including incarceration. See 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 marks and citations omitted). “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.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1282-83 (Pa. Super. 2010). 

____________________________________________

3

 Brewington was advised to discontinue the medicine or risk causing her 

unborn child to suffer from birth defects.
J-S37037-15

- 9 -

At the September 22, 2014 sentencing hearing, Brewington’s 

probation officer provided specific sentencing requests:

On 306-2012, we would request that she be found in violation of 

her probation, revoke and resentenced to 18-36 months to be 

served in a State Correctional Facility. On 3069-2012, find in 

violation of probation, revoke and resentenced to 6-24 months in 

the State Correctional Facility to run consecutive for the parole 

matter on 206-2012. The rationale for this recommendation is 

due to the fact that [Brewington] has been afforded numerous 

opportunities for treatment in the community. She has been 

unsuccessful in the highest level of community care available. 

She continues to willfully fail to take her medications and fail to 

comply with the directives of her treatment provider, our 

department as well as directives from Your Honor. We feel that 

she would benefit from a long-term commitment in the 

therapeutic community with a continuance of care that can only 

be provided at the state level.

Sentencing Hearing, 9/22/14, at 15-16. 

Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion where the trial court 

considered the appropriate factors in concluding Brewington’s repeated 

attempts at rehabilitation had failed. See Commonwealth v. Simmons, 

56 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2012). Brewington’s conduct reflects a flagrant 

disregard for the rehabilitative purpose of the probation program and a lack 

of respect for the authority of the court. Brewington continuously violated 

the terms of her probation by abusing drugs and alcohol, failing to secure 

permanent housing, failing to attend mental health appointments, 

disobeying her curfew, and committing other technical violations. Although 

Brewington was pregnant and unable to fulfill one of her probation 

requirements, she committed multiple other technical violations during the 
J-S37037-15

- 10 -

span of her probation.4 Based on Brewington’s conduct while on probation, 

it was reasonable for the trial court to impose a sentence of total 

confinement to vindicate the court’s authority5and provide Brewington with 

access to long-term mental health and drug treatment that is only available 

in the state system.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/20/2015

____________________________________________

4

 See N.T. Violation of Probation Hearing, 8/11/14 at 3-4, 8-9; N.T. 

Sentencing Hearing, 9/22/14 at 4-6, 11-15. 

5

 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c)(3).