submitted: April 15, 1981.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ROBERT E. TAYLOR, APPELLANT
No. 750 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Clearfield County at No. 80-37-CRA.
Barbara H. Schickling, Clearfield, for appellant.
Thomas F. Morgan, District Attorney, Clearfield, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cavanaugh, Johnson and Shertz, JJ.
[ 290 Pa. Super. Page 363]
On June 12, 1980, following a plea of guilty, the appellant was sentenced to a term of incarceration of not less than two years nor more than four years at the Western Diagnostic and Classification Center at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on a charge of riot.
On appeal the appellant argues that the Sentencing Court failed to indicate a reasoned basis for imposition of this sentence.*fn1 Before addressing this question we initially note that the record does not include a sentencing colloquy of any kind nor does it include a presentence report and therefore
[ 290 Pa. Super. Page 364]
our review is hampered.*fn2 The only statement of reasons is the following sentence which appears on a sentencing form:
Said period of incarceration entered into [sic] view of the nature and seriousness of the present offense, his prior criminal history and his failure to adjust to probationary periods.*fn3
The decisions of our court and the Supreme Court insist that the trial judge explain in detail the reasons for the sentence imposed in light of the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977); Commonwealth v. Wicks, 265 Pa. Super. 305, 401 A.2d 1223 (1979); Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 280 Pa. Super. 235, 421 A.2d 699 (1980); Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 282 Pa. Super. 193, 422 A.2d 894, 895 (1980); Commonwealth v. Levenson, 282 Pa. Super. 406, 422 A.2d 1355 (1980).
We recognize that "no case has held that the Sentencing Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301 et seq., states the exclusive and inflexible criteria in the sentencing process. Indeed, our cases hold that a statement of reasons should not be held insufficient when it is apparent that the court considered and applied the Code even though it made no explicit reference to those guidelines." Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 282 Pa. Super. 286, 299, 422 A.2d 1119, 1125 (1980). However, we do not believe that the judge's brief statement in the instant case adequately complies with the mandates of Commonwealth v. Riggins, supra. We therefore remand for resentencing.
Judgment of sentence vacated and case is remanded for resentencing.