Title: Com. v. Bedleyoung
Citation: 319 Pa. Super. 323, 466 A.2d 180
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 1983

319 Pa. Superior Ct. 323 (1983) 466 A.2d 180 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Larry D. BEDLEYOUNG, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued January 25, 1983. Filed September 30, 1983. *325 Robert Sullivan, Jr., Lebanon, for appellant. William L. Thurston, Assistant District Attorney, Lebanon, for Commonwealth, appellee. Before WICKERSHAM, CIRILLO and WATKINS, JJ. WICKERSHAM, Judge: Defendant Larry Bedleyoung was found guilty on charges of rape, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal conspiracy on May 14, 1981 in a jury trial proceeding conducted before the Honorable G. Thomas Gates, President Judge of Lebanon County. At trial the victim testified that on January 3, 1981 she was living in Lebanon, Pennsylvania with her two sons, the youngest of *326 whom was four months old. She was visited at about ten o'clock in the evening by her former husband and the defendant Larry Bedleyoung. After a period of time they left but returned at about eleven o'clock p.m. She let them in. She testified: Record at 13-16. On October 20, 1981, President Judge Gates sentenced defendant Bedleyoung to a term of imprisonment of not less than five nor more than fifteen years on the rape conviction and concurrent sentences on the other convictions. This direct appeal followed in which appellant Bedleyoung raises two issues for our consideration: Brief for Appellant at 4. As to the first issue raised on appeal relating to the defendant's cross-examination of the victim, we are in complete accord with the thinking and analysis of President Judge Gates when, in his opinion dated September 28, 1981 for the court en banc, he said: Lower ct. op. at 2-4. Cf. Commonwealth v. Ewell, 318 Pa.Super. 397, 465 A.2d 13, Opinion by Wieand J., filed August 19, 1983, where "during a jury trial on a charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the prosecuting attorney deliberately elicits from a Commonwealth witness an extrajudicial statement attributed to the defendant `that he had an incident before for drunken driving.'" We held: Id., 318 Pa.Superior Ct. at 400, 465 A.2d at 15. Finally, appellant Bedleyoung complains that his sentence was manifestly excessive and unduly harsh. Where the statute under which a defendant is convicted carries no specified penalty, sentencing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Such an abuse of discretion will be found where the sentence exceeds statutory limits or is manifestly excessive. Commonwealth v. Lee, 254 Pa.Super. 291, 385 A.2d 1025 (1978). As defendant's sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, we need review the sentence only to determine whether it is manifestly excessive. Guidelines have been established by the legislature for consideration by trial judges in the imposition of sentences. These guidelines require that the judge "follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).[1] The judge is to apply this principle in choosing among the sentencing alternatives available: probation, determination of guilt without penalty, partial confinement, total confinement, and fines. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(a). Further, he must make as part of the record a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). This statement of reasons must make it clear that the judge gave weight to the sentencing guideline statutes in making his determination. Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85, 90, 379 A.2d 884, 887 (1977). Here, a statement of reasons was made, and it shows that the judge made the determinations required by *332 the statute for imposition of a sentence of total confinement. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9725.[2] While it is true that "the sentencing judge must do more than merely echo" the requirements of the applicable statute to justify his sentence, see Commonwealth v. Farrar, 271 Pa.Super. 434, 452, 413 A.2d 1094, 1103 (1979), where it is clear from the record that the judge was justified in reaching those conclusions, we need not remand for resentencing. Id., 271 Pa.Superior Ct. at 453, 413 A.2d at 1104. The record in this case reveals that the defendant's conduct was of a type which militates against the imposition of probation under the applicable guidelines. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9722[3] (listing factors in favor of probation, e.g., "(1) The criminal conduct of the defendant neither caused nor threatened serious harm. . . (3) The defendant acted under a strong provocation . . . (5) The victim of the criminal conduct of the defendant induced or facilitated its commission."). Since defendant's conduct caused serious harm and his attack upon the victim was without any reasonable provocation whatsoever, the trial judge was clearly justified in declining to put defendant on probation and in finding that defendant's conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of total confinement. The court considered all the factors required by statute and we find its determination to be adequately supported by the record. We therefore conclude that the *333 sentence is not excessive under the circumstances and that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it: Sentencing Record at 3-4. Judgment of sentence affirmed. [1] Act of Dec. 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, effective in 90 days, as amended, Nov. 26, 1978, P.L. 1316, No. 319 § 1, effective Jan. 1, 1979; Act of Oct. 5, 1980, P.L. 693, No. 142, § 401(a), effective in 60 days. [2] Act of Dec. 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, effective in 90 days, as amended by Act of Oct. 5, 1980, P.L. 693, No. 142, § 401(a), effective in 60 days: The court shall impose a sentence of total confinement if, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character and condition of the defendant, it is of the opinion that the total confinement of the defendant is necessary because: (1) there is undue risk that during a period of probation or partial confinement the defendant will commit another crime. (2) the defendant is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (3) a lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the crime of the defendant. [3] Act of Dec. 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, effective in 90 days, as amended by Act of Oct. 5, 1980, P.L. 693, No. 142 § 401(a), effective in 60 days.