J-S22027-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

JEREMY R. CULP 

 Appellant No. 1652 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 24, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000396-2011, 

CP-07-CR-0001960-2010 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 02, 2015 

 Jeremy R. Culp appeals from the judgment of sentence, imposed by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, following the revocation of his 

probation. Upon review, we affirm. 

 On May 13, 2011, Culp pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking,1 simple 

assault,2 and recklessly endangering another person.3 Thereafter, the court 

sentenced Culp to an aggregate term of three years’ probation. 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921. 

2

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701. 

3

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705. 
J-S22027-15 

- 2 - 

 On October 10, 2013, the Blair County Probation Office detained Culp 

after he admitted to consuming alcohol in violation of the terms of his 

probation. On December 13, 2013, the Blair County Probation Office again 

detained Culp for absconding after he missed a mandatory meeting. 

However, it was later determined Culp missed the meeting because he had 

been hospitalized for attempted suicide. 

 On February 28, 2014, the court conducted a Gagnon II4 hearing 

regarding the aforementioned probation violations. At the hearing, the 

Commonwealth presented evidence of extensive violations and difficulties 

with Culp’s probation. Ultimately, the court found that the October 2013 

incident constituted a technical violation of Culp’s probation and further 

directed Culp to undergo a mental health evaluation at Torrence State 

Hospital. 

 On August 28, 2014, the court conducted a second Gagnon II

hearing. At that hearing, the court heard evidence from Torrence State 

Hospital regarding Culp’s drug and alcohol dependency and his history of 

committing violent acts while under the influence of those substances. 

Based on this testimony and Culp’s history of over twenty probation 

violations during the previous ten years, the Blair County Probation Office 

recommended that the court revoke Culp’s probation and impose a sentence 

____________________________________________ 

4 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). 
J-S22027-15 

- 3 - 

of total confinement. The court adopted the Commonwealth’s 

recommendation and sentenced Culp to an aggregate term of 29 to 58 

months’ incarceration on August 28, 2014. 

 On October 9, 2014, Culp filed a timely notice of appeal wherein he 

presents a single issue for our review: “Whether the court abused its 

discretion when it sentenced Jeremy Culp to a period of incarceration of not 

less than 29 nor more than 58 months at the state correctional institute.” 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. 

 Our standard of review for challenges to sentences following the 

revocation of probation is well settled. 

Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial 

court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of 

discretion. An abuse of discretion requires the trial court to have 

acted with manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, 

bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly 

erroneous. It is also now accepted that in an appeal following 

the revocation of probation, it is within our scope of review to 

consider challenges to both the legality of the final sentence and 

the discretionary aspects of an appellants sentence. 

Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citations omitted). 

 Culp argues that his total sentence is manifestly excessive and 

contrary to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771, which states in pertinent part, 

(c) Limitation on sentence of total confinement.--The court 

shall not impose a sentence of total confinement upon revocation 

unless it finds that: 

(1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or 
J-S22027-15 

- 4 - 

(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). Culp argues that none of the factors 

articulated above were present in the instant case. Thus, the lower court 

erred in imposing a sentence of total confinement. We disagree with Culp’s 

assessment. 

 Initially, we note that there was substantial evidence demonstrating 

Culp’s likelihood of committing another crime. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9117(c)2). 

Specifically, the record reflects Culp’s history of violent and unpredictable 

behavior while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, including numerous 

DUI charges and one altercation in which he was shot. Culp has failed to 

address his severe addiction issues. Instead, he continues to reoffend 

despite several probationary periods. Therefore, it was reasonable for the 

lower court to impose the sentence of total confinement. 

 Moreover, there was ample evidence presented demonstrating why 

such a sentence was essential to vindicate the authority of the court. See

42 Pa.C.S. § 9117(c)(3). Culp continuously violated the terms of his most 

recent period of probation by abusing drugs and alcohol. He also incurred 

many probation violations during his various periods of supervision over the 

last decade. Culp’s conduct exhibits a flagrant disregard for the 

rehabilitative purpose of the probation program and a lack of respect for the 
J-S22027-15 

- 5 - 

authority of the courts. Accordingly, we find it reasonable for the trial court 

to conclude such a sentence was essential to vindicate its authority. 

As this Court has previously stated, “The likelihood of re-offense and 

the need for incarceration to vindicate the trial court’s authority are matters 

that require the consideration of many factors, and two judges considering 

the same record may or may not arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, the 

need to afford discretion to sentencing courts applying § 9771(c) is plainly 

evident.” Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 95 (Pa. Super. 

2012). Based on the aforementioned facts, we discern no abuse of 

discretion on behalf of the trial court in its decision to sentence to Culp to 29 

to 58 months’ incarceration. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

PANELLA, J., Joins the majority. 

STRASSBURGER, J., files a Concurring Memorandum. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/2/2015