No. 2486 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division Nos. 3147-76, 3265-76, 4249-76, 95-77, 96-77, and 127-77.
Paul C. Vangrossi, Norristown, for appellant.
James A. Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Price, Spaeth and Lipez, JJ. Spaeth, J., concurs in the result.
[ 275 Pa. Super. Page 178]
On March 17, 1977, appellant pleaded guilty to several charges which included burglary,*fn1 theft,*fn2 receiving stolen property,*fn3 and conspiracy,*fn4 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of from three to six years. That sentence was immediately suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. On August 13, 1978, appellant was arrested for another burglary and a Gagnon II hearing was held on September 11, 1978. At that hearing, probation was revoked and the original three to six year prison sentence reimposed. Appellant now contends that: (1) procedural deficiencies in the revocation procedure denied him his due
[ 275 Pa. Super. Page 179]
process rights; and (2) the hearing court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. As we agree with part of appellant's argument, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Addressing initially appellant's second argument, it is quite clear that following our supreme court's resolution of Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85, 379 A.2d 884 (1977), a trial judge is required to state on the record his reasons for the particular sentence imposed. This mandate applies with equal force to sentencing following the revocation of probation. See Commonwealth v. Cottle, 260 Pa. Super. 85, 393 A.2d 1024 (1978). These articulated reasons should reflect the judge's consideration not only of those sentencing criteria enumerated in the Sentencing Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1301 et seq., but also of the circumstances of the offense and the character of the offender. Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976). This court has, however, never required a trial judge to list those criteria of the sentencing code seriatim and detail his response to each. Commonwealth v. Doyle, 275 Pa. Super. 373, 418 A.2d 1336 (1979) (Price, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Wicks, 265 Pa. Super. 305, 401 A.2d 1223 (1979). We insist only that the record indicate the trial judge's cognizance and consideration of these factors at the time of sentencing.
On the record before us, we conclude that the trial judge adhered to the mandate. After receiving a summary of appellant's history in the probation program, his recent violations, and his explanation for those violations, the court noted as follows:
"The Court gave you a break last March, in March of '77, and the Court placed confidence in you by sending you to the Today Program and putting you on probation which was abused by you and even though you say that it was done under the influence of narcotics, the Court has to protect the public, otherwise, every junky will come in and say I had an overdose, I was under the influence of narcotics or something else, we just can't have people
[ 275 Pa. Super. Page 180]
ravaging our society. We are in the midst of a crime wave right now and the only thing we can do with people in your condition is to incarcerate them so they ...