Opinion ID: 1972080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court's findings and the Guidelines.

Text: In our discussion of the trial court's findings, we look to statutory provisions, decisions of this court and, of course, the Guidelines. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) provides in pertinent part: . . . In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, 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. In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing pursuant to section 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing) and made effective pursuant to section 2155, the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant. We know also that the legislature has said that a Sentence Guideline Form shall be completed at the court's direction and shall be made a part of the record no later than twenty (20) days after the date of each sentencing. [6] 204 Pa.Code § 303.1(b). In Commonwealth v. Royer, 328 Pa.Super. 60, 476 A.2d 453 (1984), this court held that the judge's statement of reasons for the sentence made of record at sentencing in the defendant's presence constitutes a `contemporaneous written statement.' Id., 328 Pa.Superior Ct. at 69, 476 A.2d at 457. However, the court in Royer also said that the contemporaneous statement must contain the permissible range of sentences under the guidelines and, at least in summary form, the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled the court to deviate from the sentencing range. Id., 328 Pa.Superior Ct. at 71, 476 A.2d at 458. Further, there can no longer be any doubt that the opinion filed by the court below pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 does not constitute a contemporaneous written statement. Commonwealth v. Bedley, 325 Pa.Super. 157, 160, 472 A.2d 695, 697 (1984). We have examined the sentencing transcript and the only reason we can find for the sentence imposed was because appellee had alleged that he was twice sexually assaulted while in detention awaiting sentencing. Although it is not clear from the record, apparently when appellee reported the alleged sexual assaults against him, he asked for and received from the prison authorities protective custody and was removed from the general prison population. (RR. 53a-54a). That the trial judge sentenced outside the Guidelines solely because of her sympathy for the appellee and a concern for his safety, can best be understood from the following discussion between the prosecutor and the trial judge: MR. CLARKE [Assistant District Attorney]: Yes, Your Honor. I will very respectfully take exception to any sentence outside of the mandatory range. I don't know whether or not we're going to reconsider in this case, I don't know. If I may now address the guidelines. The bottom of the guidelines is eighteen months. Now, that's in the bottom of mitigated range. There is nothing in and of itself mitigated about this offense, just the opposite. THE COURT: It's not mitigated. The only mitigating circumstances I see in this crime, is that Mr. Days, himself, has been the victim of two very brutal attacks in the prison, and let me say that if it weren't for that, I would certainly give him at least eleven and a half to twenty-three but I am very reluctant to put him back in the prison system, in view of what has happened to him. MR. CLARKE: I understand your point. I guess my response, Your Honor, is from the way the Philadelphia Prison System is and from the people who run Holmesburg, and the House of Correction, it seems that they have taken care of the problem. THE COURT: Well, they're doing the best they can with an impossible situation. MR. CLARKE: I guess I'm differing with Your Honor as to the impossibility of a situation. The man is now being protected, the man is there because he committed this very, very, very, very, serious crime. THE COURT: It's a very serious crime. It's a very serious crime but the penalty for a serious crime as kidnapping of this youngster, is not to be rape, that's not policy. MR. CLARKE: I understand. I understand, Your Honor, and I would ask you to impose a sentence within the guidelines and, of course, I, and perhaps Your Honor as well, should contact the prisons and make sure that the man is safe regardless of what sentence you impose, whether you go within the guidelines or not, and if Your Honor chooses, and only if Your Honor chooses, to break the guidelines in this case, this case is still worth incarceration, not just because the guidelines say incarceration, Your Honor. RR. 59a-61a. While we find the trial judge's sympathy and concern for appellee's safety to be commendable and possibly a subject for further inquiry by the trial judge to the prison authorities, that is not a sufficient reason for the sentence imposed herein. As we have already noted, supra p. 1341, the minimum range of the applicable guidelines for appellee's kidnapping conviction is twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) months. In calculating an appropriate sentence under the applicable guidelines, this should have been the starting point. Unfortunately, the only reference the court below ever made to the guidelines was when the court said that the offense gravity score was an eight (8). (RR. 54a). The court was later advised by the prosecutor that the bottom of the mitigated guideline range was eighteen (18) months; however, the trial judge stated the crime was not mitigated. The court went on to say, as we have already indicated, the only mitigating circumstance I see in this case, is that Mr. Days, himself, has been the victim of two very brutal attacks [7] in the prison, and let me say that if it weren't for that, I would certainly give him at least eleven and a half to twenty-three but I am very reluctant to put him back in the prison system, in view of what happened to him. (RR. 60a). This is further evidence that the trial judge never considered the Sentencing Guidelines because even the eleven and a half to twenty-three months she would have given is still less than the mitigated sentence guideline for an offense gravity score of eight (8) such as we have here. In conclusion, since the only reason offered by the court in support of the sentence imposed was a concern for appellee's safety in prison, we believe that no adequate reason exists for sentencing outside the Guidelines in this case and we are also convinced that the sentence depreciates the seriousness of the offense. Therefore, we find that the court's failure to follow the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes an abuse of discretion. Judgment of sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is relinquished.