Court Opinion

ID: 9639180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:06:58.62449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:13.645388
License: Public Domain

*73HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
Our task as a court in reviewing the sentencing record is to consider 1) the nature of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history and characteristics; 2) the sentencing court’s observations of the defendant and the presentence report; 3) the sentencing court’s findings; and 4) the sentencing guidelines. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721. An application of these factors to this appeal convinces me that the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence outside the guidelines.
The court seemingly downgraded the significance of the crime. Appellee’s act was premeditated as he walked with his stepdaughter to her grandmother’s house and then led her to the basement; she was ignorant of his plans and did not freely accommodate him upon discovering his intentions. Appellee choked her and threatened to kill her if she did not engage in oral sex. Moreover, he threatened to beat her if she screamed.
Appellee’s criminal record and characteristics are equally alarming. A propensity for abusing children is demonstrated by this crime and by appellee’s earlier conviction for corrupting the morals of a minor.
In 1980, appellee was convicted of assaulting the mother of one of his children, a crime which the sentencing court refused to recognize as aggravated assault because, in its judgment, there was insufficient evidence of appellee’s actions and the victim’s injuries. I believe the court erred, as appellee admitted breaking her jaw and carrying a hammer in a paper bag at the time he struck her. Furthermore, appellee pled guilty, and aggravated assault was the only charge contained in the information. Appellee’s probable release following four months of imprisonment on the present charge is particularly disturbing as he will then reside with his wife, two stepdaughters (one of whom was the victim here) and his one-year-old daughter, the class of people he has abused.
Many of the sentencing court’s observations of appellee were incorrect. I do not agree that appellee’s work record *74was “excellent.” Appellee was fortunate to enjoy success in moving from job to job, thereby maintaining steady employment. Since 1969, appellee’s longest period with one employer was from 1969 to 1971 when he worked as a maintenance man and welder. Thereafter, he worked as a sheet metal worker, construction worker and as a laborer in various foundries. Lately, appellee has been self-employed as a handyman and home renovator. Appellee’s frequent turnover and short-lived jobs do not constitute an “excellent” employment history without evidence of his workmanship and diligence. Frequent short-lived jobs raise questions regarding commitment.
The court also had no basis for disbelieving the report of licensed psychologist, Sol B. Barenbaum, Ph.D. Dr. Bar-enbaum recommended correctional institutional training. With such training he opined that appellee’s “prognosis for adjustment in the community is seen at best guarded____” The court’s opinion that appellee’s prognosis was better than guarded was without basis.
Similarly, there was no basis for believing that appellee was contrite. No testimony or documentary evidence reflected appellee’s remorse; consequently, the court’s opinion must have been based upon observations of appellee’s courtroom demeanor. Since most defendants display remorse at sentencing, I do not consider appellee’s appearance of contrition to be a factor justifying a reduced sentence, particularly in light of his history of abusing children and paramours.
The court cites appellee’s guilty plea and need for sex therapy as additional reasons for departing from the guidelines. A guilty plea is not remarkable and does not necessarily represent a defendant’s genuine sense of guilt. In fact, it is generally, though not admittedly, submitted in return for the prosecution’s recommendation for leniency. Secondly, sex therapy can be conducted during incarceration as easily and effectively as during probation.
Having failed to substantiate its departure from the guideline ranges, the court erred in sentencing appellee to a *75combined term of imprisonment of not less than four months nor more than two years. See Commonwealth v. Drumgoole, 341 Pa.Super. 468, 491 A.2d 1352 (1985).