Court Opinion

ID: 9754909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:18:10.391954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:00.529562
License: Public Domain

CERCONE, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
While I agree that appellant has advanced no argument sufficient to require the granting of a new trial, I believe *258appellant should be resentenced. In my estimation the court gave no real consideration to the question of whether appellant was an appropriate candidate for probation under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. § 780-117 (1977). Appellant was a college student who sold a relatively small quantity of marijuana to an acquaintance. He had no prior criminal record and the presentence investigation report urged that he be given a probationary sentence. The court’s only cogent reasons for imposing a jail sentence were the standard sentencing practice in Clarion County and appellant’s failure to lead the police to a larger marijuana distributor. Sustaining this jail sentence of hxk to 23 months flies in the face of the wholesome purposes of Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977).
Therefore, I would vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
HOFFMAN and SPAETH, JJ., join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.