No. 789 Pittsburgh 1982, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Butler County at No. C.A. 696 of 1981, Book 73, page 82.
Claude V. Falkenhan, Jr., Zelienople, for appellant.
Robert Hawk, Assistant District Attorney, Butler, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Rowley, Popovich and Hoffman, JJ. Rowley, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion.
[ 322 Pa. Super. Page 112]
Appellant, John McDonald, was convicted by a jury of rape,*fn1 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,*fn2 burglary,*fn3 and simple assault.*fn4 Post-verdict motions were denied, and appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not less than three nor more than six years on all charges, with the exception of the simple assault conviction for which appellant received a concurrent term of imprisonment of not more than one nor more than two years. This appeal followed. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellant contends inter alia that the trial court erred at sentencing when it failed to articulate properly the reasons for its sentence. We agree.
The standard which this Court has applied in sentencing cases has been summarized in the following manner:
"It is settled that the imposition of a proper sentence is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge. Commonwealth v. Valentin, 259 Pa. Super. 496, 393 A.2d 935 (1978). In exercising this discretion, however, the judge must rely on full and accurate information and must state on the record the reasons for the sentences imposed. Commonwealth v. Riggins, [474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977)]; Commonwealth v. Wicks, 265 Pa. Super. 305, 401 A.2d 1223 (1979). This statement of reasons must show that in imposing sentence, the judge attached weight to the factors set forth in the statutory guidelines for sentencing, and carefully considered the facts concerning the circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Wicks, supra. If the sentencing judge fails to state the reasons for the sentences on the record, we will vacate the sentences
[ 322 Pa. Super. Page 113]
and remand for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Young, [272 Pa. Super. 82, 414 A.2d 679 (1979)]; Commonwealth v. Wicks, supra. Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 280 Pa. Super. 235, 242, 421 A.2d 699, 703 (1980)."
Commonwealth v. Bryner, 285 Pa. Super. 305, 307-308, 427 A.2d 236, 237 (1981). Accord Commonwealth v. Walters, 287 Pa. Super. 53, 55-56, 429 A.2d 716, 717 (1981).
Against this framework, we must examine the following transcript which contains the complete record of the sentencing proceeding:
"[The Prosecutor] MR. HEPTING: John W. McDonald, number fifteen on the list, Your Honor. John W. McDonald, case number 696 of 1981. Following trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of burglary, rape, ...