Court Opinion

ID: 9770127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:46:40.584301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:14.588291
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING Statement by
FITZGERALD, J.:
I agree with the majority’s disposition on the wiretap issue. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority on the sentencing issue, as I would find that Appellant’s aggregate sentence of 633 to 1,500 years’ imprisonment is manifestly excessive. I would find that Appellant has raised a substantial question in arguing *534that his sentence is inconsistent with the objectives of the Sentencing Code. Section 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, General Standards, provides that “the court shall 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). I would find that the trial court could have achieved the policies of section 9721(b) without imposing a minimum sentence that is more than six times a person’s natural lifetime, which I find is manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2).