Albert Blumberg, Chester, for appellant.
Basil C. Clare, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Raymond R. Start, Dist. Atty., Media, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Gunther, JJ.
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 342]
One may not be twice convicted of the same crime. So also, when convicted by plea or otherwise, a defendant may be sentenced but once. This has always been the law and the rule is invariable in its application
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 343]
with one exception, viz.: Where a sentence is imposed during the term at which a defendant is convicted the court may alter the sentence by increasing or reducing the punishment during the term, but not thereafter. Cf. Com. ex rel. Michelotti v. Ashe, Warden, 162 Pa. Super. 18, 56 A.2d 313; Moskowitz's Registration Case, 329 Pa. 183, 196 A. 498. In Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, 368 Pa. 211, 82 A.2d 244, 247, the limitation on the sentencing power of the court is thus stated: 'Once the power to sentence has been exercised, in whole or in part, or waived, expressly or by conduct, a court may not thereafter change or modify a sentence except within the term at which it was entered or waived or, where vacated within the term, the power to resentence subsequently has been reserved likewise within the term.' (Emphasis added.)
On June 6, 1949, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of sodomy on Bill 258 and was sentenced forthwith to pay a fine of $50 and to undergo imprisonment in the county jail for a minimum term of 1 year and a maximum of 10 years. At the same time the judge, by separate order, added this limitation on the sentence imposed: 'Upon payment of fine and costs and [the prosecutrix' doctor's bill and attorney fee amounting to a total of $284] defendant will be placed on 10 years probation'. We are not directly concerned with other terms of the 'probation' -- prescribing psychiatric treatment, requiring suitable employment and forbidding further association with the prosecutrix. The defendant paid the fine and costs as well as the doctor bill and the attorney fee, whereupon the sentencing judge 'placed the defendant upon probation'. This action was intended by the judge as a suspension of the imposition of the prison sentence and not of its execution merely. On March 24, 1952, almost three years later, the defendant was convicted of indecent
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 344]
assault in the lower court.*fn1 Thereupon the judge who imposed the original sentence on Bill 258 again sentenced the defendant 'for Breach of Probation * * * to undergo imprisonment in the County Jail * * * for a period of 10 years maximum and 5 years minimum * * * sentence to date from to-day'.
It is elementary that an order placing a convicted defendant on probation is in lieu of sentence, giving such defendant the opportunity of demonstrating that he is worthy of the trust reposed in him that he will not again come in conflict with the criminal law. That is the connotation of probation in its technical sense in this State. The power of the court in placing one convicted of crime on probation, is wholly statutory and is governed by § 25 of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, 61 P.S. § 331.25 which provides: 'Whenever any person shall be found guilty of any criminal offense by verdict of a jury, plea, or otherwise, except murder in the first degree, in any court of this Commonwealth, the court shall have the power, in its discretion, if it believes the character of the person and the circumstances of the case to be such that he is not likely again to engage in a course of criminal conduct and that the public good does not demand or require the imposition of a sentence to imprisonment, instead of imposing such sentence, to place the person on probation for such definite period as the court shall direct, not exceeding the maximum period ...