Title: Commonwealth v. Infante, Jose (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 48 EAP 2004
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 29, 2005

[J-21-2005] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JOSE INFANTE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 48 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 5/11/04 at 627 EDA 2003 vacating the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division entered on 1/27/03 at 9908-0678 and 9910-0736 ARGUED: March 9, 2005 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 29, 2005 I join the majority opinion, subject only to a reservation concerning the passage suggesting that the sentencing court could have revoked Appellee’s probation and imposed a maximum sentence based on the mere fact of Appellee’s having been arrested and charged with new crimes. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 14-15. In this regard, I tend toward the view that the fact of an arrest and new charges should not be deemed sufficient in and of itself to support revocation. Accord Commonwealth v. Sims, 770 A.2d 346, 352 (Pa. Super. 2001); see generally Johnson v. State, 490 A.2d 734, [J-21-2005] - 2 736-37 (Md. App. 1985) (collecting cases).1 I join the majority disposition not so much because I view the sentencing court’s approach as an act of lenity,2 but rather, because I find nothing in the governing statutory scheme to prevent the approach as an orderly manner of addressing multiple acts that are in violation of the terms governing a probationer’s release. 1 Indeed, a number of jurisdictions have couched revocation on such limited grounds as a due process violation. See, e.g., State v. Kidwell, 1995 WL 68164 (Ohio App. Feb. 16, 1995); Wright v. State, 640 S.W.2d 265, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). 2 In this regard, I also have difficulty with the majority’s indication that the maximum sentence was imposable based on technical violations. While this may be true in the abstract, there are limits to the sentencing court’s discretion, and, as applied to the circumstances of individual technical probation violations, it may be an abuse of discretion to impose a maximum sentence.