Court Opinion

ID: 9635353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:48:01.933876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:25.026800
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority concludes that because the appellant was not present when the court gave additional reasons for the sentence imposed, the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would hold that the appellant does not have to be present when the court supplements its reasons for the sentence in response to the appellant’s Motion for Modification, Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410.
When the sentencing and post-sentencing reasons of the trial court are viewed together they are sufficient to meet *28the sentencing requirements of Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977). The majority considers only the reasons given by the trial court at the sentencing and concludes that the reasons are insufficient. However, it is well within the discretion of this Court to consider the reasons for the sentence given by the trial judge in his denial of the defendant’s motion for modification of the sentence. Rule 1410 is designed to allow a sentencing court to correct or modify itself before the case is sent up to an appellate court.
The majority correctly states that “... no case specifically holds that the reasons ... be made within the presence of the defendant.” (At 23). The rationale in Riggins for giving the reasons for the sentence is persuasive. However, Riggins does not set up a rigid requirement that the defendant must be present when reasons are given regardless of whether there may be a more effective and efficient way to serve justice and the interests of the defendant. At sentencing it is in the best interest of justice and efficiency to have the defendant present. The same goals are not served by having the defendant present at a post-sentence supplementation of the reasons.
At first glance it would seem that one could make the same arguments for requiring the defendant to be present during the reconsideration procedure as could be made for requiring the defendant to be present during the sentencing. However, at sentencing the defendant must be present so that he can exercise his right to allocution and so that the court may advise the defendant of his various post-sentence rights. Since the defendant must be present for other related sentencing reasons, it is sensible to require the court to give the reasons for the sentence in order to promote both the efficient and direct resolution of the case in a just manner. No such additional reasons exist for requiring the defendant to be present during a post sentence supplementation of the reasons. Requiring the defendant to be present when the court supplements its reasons would produce additional expense in transporting *29the defendant to the courthouse and in holding another hearing. It would also consume valuable court time and would generally hinder the court’s resolution of the case.
It would be more sensible to have the additional reasons for the sentence filed and a written copy given to the defendant and his attorney. The defendant would have the opportunity to examine the judge’s reasons outside of the courtroom setting and would certainly not be precluded from correcting any mistaken information used in determining the sentence. Moreover, having a written copy of the reasons for sentence given to the defendant would also serve the same therapeutic effect as having the reasons read to the defendant.
In the present case there is no reason why the appellant should have been present nor why the sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. The appellant’s challenge to the sentence is based solely on the legality of the sentence. The appellant argues that: 1) the sentence was illegal; 2) the sentence was excessive; and, 3) there were insufficient reasons given for the sentence, all of which are issues appropriate for review by this Court. See Commonwealth v. Vogel, 440 Pa. 1, 268 A.2d 89 (1970); Commonwealth v. Weldon, 287 Pa.Super. 533, 430 A.2d 1180 (1981); Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 282 Pa.Super. 286, 422 A.2d 1119 (1980). The appellant does not challenge the facts upon which the sentence was based. Considering that the judge was provided with all of the pertinent facts before he sentenced the appellant, and that he placed sufficient reasons for the sentence throughout the record, a remand for resentencing would be a useless gesture. As Judge Hester has succinctly stated:
... a remand is not necessary whenever it is apparent from the record that such would be “a mere procedural exercise.” [Commonwealth v.] Grant [235 Pa.Super. 357, 341 A.2d 511 (1975)], supra, i.e., no change in the sentence would result. See also, Commonwealth v. Senyszyn, [266] Pa.Super. [480], 405 A.2d 535 (1979); Com*30monwealth v. Guenzer, 255 Pa.Super. 587 fn. 2, 389 A.2d 133 fn. 2 (1978).
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 278 Pa.Super. 39, 50, 419 A.2d 1344, 1350 (1980).
Therefore, since the legislature and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania do not specifically require the defendant to be present when the trial court, subsequent to sentencing, supplements its reasons for the sentence imposed, I would not burden the court with this added procedure which hinders the prompt rendering of justice.
WIEAND, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.