Court Opinion

ID: 9636675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:38:23.321332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:48.128637
License: Public Domain

BENDER, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting:
¶ 1 While I agree with the majority’s disposition and analysis as to Appellant’s second and third issues, I must note my dissent as to the majority’s resolution of the sentencing issue.
¶ 2 I first note that the sentence is within the sentencing guidelines, and as such, should be disturbed only in rare instances. In this case, Appellant attempted to coerce Mr, Geiger into accepting responsibility for his actions on the night in question. Then at trial, in the face of the testimony of Mr. Geiger, Sarah Arndt and Thomas Arndt, Appellant swore under oath that he was not driving. He attempted to sell to the jury his story that Mr. Geiger was the driver. This not only shows contempt for the process, it shows a lack of a grip on reality. Why would such a defense be offered in light of the testimony of the disinterested witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Arndt? Does Appellant feel that he can offer a preposterous and obviously false story and then walk away from responsibility for his actions?
¶ 3 The trial court in my opinion was correct when it stated “I believe [Appellant] is in need of rehabilitation that will be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution.” N.T. Sentencing, 2/23/04, at 7. I believe that the short period of commitment will give Appellant a chance to consider his actions and hopefully lead to some degree of rehabilitation.
¶ 4 In any event, I would not conclude that the sentence in question constitutes a “manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212, 214 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.