Court Opinion

ID: 9753020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:51:23.996663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:24.283830
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of sentence. I do not agree with the majority’s statement at slip opinion, page 1385, as follows:
We do not believe, however, mere reference to a presentence report, without evidence of record that it supports the sentence, will fulfill the requirement of Devers. I believe this statement is at odds with our Supreme
Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 101-102, 546 A.2d 12, 18, (1988), in which it was stated:
Where pre-sentence reports exist, we shall continue to presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself. In order to dispel *346any lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or systematic definitions of their punishment procedure. Having been fully informed by the pre-sentence report, the sentencing court’s discretion should not be disturbed. (Emphasis added.)
In the instant case, the court below did not merely “refer” to the sentencing report but expressly stated “I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigative report.” The report, according to our Supreme Court, constitutes the record and speaks for itself. The report stated “the defendant has not cooperated with on-going state police investigations despite an initial offering to do so.” The court below also noted that the appellant showed no remorse for his conduct. Appellant was involved not merely in the possession of cocaine but in its sale on two separate occasions. The sentencing court considered the seriousness of the offenses and other factors involving the appellant.
Furthermore, I would disagree with much of what the majority argues in support of a more lenient sentence in this case, i.e., the appellant’s skill as an auto mechanic and his experience at welding, sheet metal fabrication, and mechanical drawing, as well as his owning and operating an automobile repair shop for eight years where he had substantial earnings. To the contrary, I believe that using the cover of a legitimate business enterprise in order to deal illicit drugs and thereby attempting to escape law enforcement scrutiny are reasons to call for a more serious sentence than one who openly engages in the sale of drugs on the street.
In my opinion, the sentencing court’s discretion should not be disturbed and I would affirm the judgment of sentence.
CIRILLO, President Judge, and ROWLEY and WIEAND, JJ., join.