No. 308 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, No. 364 Criminal, 1979
Robert G. Kochems, Mercer, for appellant.
Charles S. Hersh, Assistant District Attorney, Mercer, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brosky, DiSalle and Shertz, JJ.
[ 287 Pa. Super. Page 432]
Appellant, Randy Allen Snair, pleaded guilty to the statutory rape*fn1 of a 12 year old girl. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 to 7 years imprisonment, and argues in this direct appeal that his sentence is excessive and that the sentencing judge did not comply with required sentencing procedures. He requests
[ 287 Pa. Super. Page 433]
that we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case to the lower court so that he may be resentenced. We refuse to do so and will affirm the lower court.
The facts are as follows: At the time of the rape, appellant was 24 years old and married. The victim, 12 years old, was attempting to run away from home,*fn2 which she had left on Sunday, August 19, 1979. With the permission of a friend's*fn3 parent, the victim spent that night in a spare bedroom at the friend's home. The next day, at about 12:30 P.M., appellant spoke with the victim at the friend's home and told her she could stay at the house of his grandparents, who were on vacation. The victim accepted the offer and appellant secreted her to his grandparents' house in his truck. Appellant entered the house through a cellar window and admitted the victim into the house through the back door. A short time after entering the house appellant called the victim into a bedroom where he had sexual intercourse with her. The victim attempted to stop appellant but could not. After appellant had finished, the victim locked herself in the bathroom. Appellant cautioned the victim not to tell anyone about the incident because he was married and his wife was pregnant. Approximately one half-hour elapsed between the time appellant entered the house, raped the victim, and left.
Appellant claims that at his sentencing the judge failed to comport with the mandates of Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977), which require the sentencing judge to articulate on the record his reasons for the sentence, and Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976), under which the sentencing court must give individualized consideration to the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant. We disagree.
The record establishes that the sentencing court considered the seriousness of the statutory rape offense in and
[ 287 Pa. Super. Page 434]
of itself as a factor in sentencing appellant. This is a proper consideration under Section ...