NO. 186 PITTSBURGH, 1980, Appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CC 7905467A.
David J. Slesnick, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Beck, Johnson and Popovich, JJ. Johnson, J., concurs in result.
[ 310 Pa. Super. Page 134]
Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which imposed a six to twenty-three-month term of imprisonment upon Appellant after Appellant pleaded guilty to twelve counts of receiving stolen property.*fn1 For the reasons stated herein we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
On appeal Appellant contends that the sentencing court did not impose sentence in conformity with the Sentencing Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1301 et seq., and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405(b).
In sentencing cases our scope of review commences with a determination of whether the sentencing judge adhered to the Sentencing Code guidelines.
If the sentencing judge followed the obligatory procedures enacted to assure careful, intelligent and informed sentencing, then this court may review the sentence only to ensure that there has not been an abuse of the wide discretion accorded the sentencing court . . . . [I]f the sentencing judge did not follow the obligatory procedures,
[ 310 Pa. Super. Page 135]
then this court must remand for resentencing in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules . . . .
Commonwealth v. Kraft, 294 Pa. Super.Ct. 599, 601, 440 A.2d 627, 628 (1982) (footnote omitted).
The Pennsylvania concept of indeterminate sentencing requires 'an implicit adoption of the philosophy of individual sentencing . . . .' To assist in the proper exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, the legislature promulgated guidelines in the Sentencing Code . . . . Under the Sentencing Code, a sentence must be imposed for the minimum amount of time that is consistent with the ...