Court Opinion

ID: 9762012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:07:39.076213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.168833
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I agree with the majority that under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of 1972, appellant is entitled to a correction of sentence. I believe, however, that the instant case should be remanded to the court below for resentencing.
While we have held that it is within our power to correct or modify an excessive sentence,1 it would belie our responsibility to impart just and fair sentences to undertake that delicate function without having a full picture of the defendant before the reviewing court.2 *41Although we may without difficulty ascertain the statutory limits prescribed for the particular offense, I am unable to conclude that we have that degree of information on the character and history of the offender to make a rational determination.
As our Supreme Court has said, “[E]very fact that will aid in passing a proper judgment is relevant and should be taken into consideration. And this includes not only the facts of the crime involved, hut every hit of available trustworthy and pertinent information that will and the court in determining the type of individual to he sentenced.” (Emphasis added). Commonwealth v. Bell, 417 Pa. 291, 296, 208 A. 2d 465 (1965). Although this Court may have the power to impose sentence, I believe that correction of sentence, under the circumstances of the instant case,3 should be undertaken by the court below where all pertinent information relating to the defendant may be considered.
The case should be remanded to the court below for resentencing consistent with the new act.
Spaulding and Packbl, JJ., join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

 There is authority for this Court to correct an excessive or illegal sentence. 17 P.S. §192 provides that the “superior court may . . . affirm, reverse, amend or modify any order, judgment or decree as it may thirds; to be just. . . .” My research of the case law does disclose that this Court has exercised that power to correct an illegal sentence. I have found at least one case where we so acted. Commonwealth v. Oxman, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 482, 98 A. 2d 424, allocatur refused, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. xxv (1953), cert. den., 347 U.S. 918 (1954). On the other hand, the overwhelming number of eases have held that we should remand to the lower court for re-sentencing. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 296, 294 A. 2d 805 (1972); Commonwealth v. Pouls, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 595, 182 A. 2d 261 (1962); Commonwealth v. Schultz, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 504, 87 A. 2d 69 (1952).

 A.B.A. Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences, §1.2 recommends that the reviewing court should not correct a sentence unless it is in a position to consider all three of the follow*41ing factors: “tlie nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest.”

 Originally, appellant was sentenced to one and one-half to three years imprisonment on a charge of possession of narcotics. The maximum sentence under the law in existence at the time of sentence was imprisonment of five years and a fine of $2,000 [35 P.S. §780-2O(c)]. The new act fixes the maximum penalty at one-year imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 [35 P.S. §780-113(b)]. As the lower court did not impose the maximum sentence originally, 1 do not believe that we should automatically impose a maximum one-year prison term, just because it acts to lower an excessive sentence to come within the permissible limits of the new act.