Court Opinion

ID: 9642999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:14:51.731524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:56.089927
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
dissenting:
Just five years ago, this Court in a unanimous en banc opinion (Spaeth, J., joined by Jacobs, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Hester, JJ.)1 rejected the position espoused today by a majority of this same Court when it said the following:
“In determining whether the sentencing judge has abused his discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence we must review the judge’s reasons for imposing the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85, 379 A.2d 884 (1977); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1970); Commonwealth v. Bolyard, 256 Pa.Super. 57, 389 A.2d 598 (1978) (7/12/78); Commonwealth v. Wertz, 252 Pa.Super. 584, 384 A.2d 933 (1978).” Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa.Super. 496, 500, 393 A.2d 935, 937 (1978). (Emphasis added).
In Valentin, the only issue raised was whether “the sentence was manifestly excessive.” Id., 259 Pa.Superior Ct. at 500, 393 A.2d 936. In fact, this Court specifically noted that “[ajppellant has not asserted that the court’s reasons were improper or inadequate.” Id., 259 Pa.Superior Ct. at 500 n. 3, 393 A.2d at 936-7 n. 3. (Citations omitted).
Five years later, the majority is presented with the same issue and reaches the opposite result. In doing so, the Court en banc overrules Commonwealth v. Valentin, supra, and its progeny without addressing the more basic question of why the rule of law which this Court recently pronounced in Valentin was in error. Because, in this writer’s view, the Superior Court’s decision in Valentin was not an error in the law which was in need of correction, I must dissent.

. Judge Hoffman did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.