Court Opinion

ID: 4244380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-12 19:27:55.357562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:20.790500
License: Public Domain

J-S77009-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                        PENNSYLVANIA
                            Appellee

                       v.

ALFONSO SMITH,

                            Appellant                 No. 1015 MDA 2017

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 2, 2017
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000570-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                     FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2018

        Appellant, Alfonso Smith, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 2

to 5 years’ incarceration, with credit for 283 days of time served, imposed

after his probationary sentence was revoked based on technical violations.

After review, we affirm.

        The trial court summarized the procedural history of Appellant’s

underlying case, which we need not reproduce herein.           See Trial Court

Opinion (TCO), 8/10/17, at 1-3. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial

court imposed an excessive term of incarceration following the revocation of

his probation due to his technical violations of failing to report to his

probation officer.      Specifically, Appellant avers that the court failed to

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77009-17

properly weigh his mental illness and rehabilitative needs, as well as the

gravity of the offense, and the protection of the public.

      We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and

the applicable law. Additionally, we have considered the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

opinion of the Honorable Peter W. Schmehl of the Court of Common Pleas of

Berks County.    We conclude that Judge Schmehl’s well-reasoned opinion

adequately demonstrates that the court weighed the requisite sentencing

factors, including Appellant’s mental illness and rehabilitative needs, and

reasonably concluded that a standard range sentence of incarceration was

appropriate to vindicate the court’s authority.       Thus, we adopt Judge

Schmehl’s opinion as our own, and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence

on the grounds set forth therein.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/12/2018

                                     -2-
                                                                                 Circulated 01/31/2018 11:54 AM

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                           IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                        OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                                        CRIMINAL DIVISION
                         v.
                                                        No. CP-06-CR-570-2013

 ALFONSO .SMITH,
                               Appellant

Justin Bodor, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth
Rachel Silver, Assistant Public Defender, for the Defendant/Appellant

OPINION, Schmehl, S.J.                                                 Dated: August      9 , 2017
          Alfonso Smith (hereinafter "Appellant"), appeals the May. 2, 2017 sentence order

committing him to a state correctional facility as the result of his violating his probation.

          I.      FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

          By Information filed February 28, 2013, Appellant was charged with Possession of a

Controlled Substance (Heroin), Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance

(Heroin) and Delivery of a Controlled Substance (Heroin). The Commonwealth had already

filed on February 22, 2013 its Notice of Intention to Proceed with Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317 (drug-free school zones), which required a minimum of

two years of incarceration.         Appellant applied for participation in Treatment Court and the

Intermediate Punishment Program.            Over the Commonwealth's objection, Appellant was

admitted to the Intermediate Punishment Program. On November l 9, 20 l 5, Appellant pleaded

gui.lJY. to Count 3, Delivery of a Controlled Substance and was sentenced by the undersigned to
    CQ' �
fi\ie.�ea  ��«/