Court Opinion

ID: 9701845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:40:27.309003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:30.101021
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge
(dissenting):
Appellant contends that the lower court unconstitutionally based sentence on his refusal to plead guilty and his demand for a jury trial. For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Riggins, 232 Pa.Super. 32, 332 A.2d 521 (1974), I would remand for re-sentencing.
Appellant pleaded “not guilty” in the court below to charges of aggravated robbery and related offenses, and demanded a jury trial. After the jury rendered a ver*503diet of guilty, the lower court stated, “If you had pled guilty . . . there is no question in my mind, but had you pled guilty it might have shown me the right side of your attitude about this, but you pled not guilty, fought it all the way, and the jury found you guilty, and I’m going to sentence you at this time”. From a maximum possible sentence of fourteen to twenty-eight years, the lower court sentenced appellant to ten to twenty years, although appellant had no prior record.
The remarks of the trial judge clearly indicate that the severity of the sentence imposed was based in part on appellant’s refusal to plead guilty, and the exercise of his constitutional right to demand a jury trial.
This Court has recently held that “[a] plea of not guilty or a demand for a jury trial are not factors that a judge should consider in deciding whether to give a more severe sentence.” Commonwealth v. Staley, 229 Pa.Super. 322, 324 A.2d 393, 395 (1974).
The judgment of sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
SPAETH, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.