Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT REED HOLLER (03/30/84)

filed: March 30, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ROBERT REED HOLLER, APPELLANT



No. 350 Harrisburg 1982, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Dauphin County at No. 894 CD 1982.

COUNSEL

Smith B. Gephart, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Katherene E. Holtzinger, Assistant District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Com., appellee.

Wickersham, Del Sole and Montemuro, JJ. Del Sole, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 306]

On August 11, 1982, appellant Robert Reed Holler entered a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal conspiracy*fn1 and not guilty to a charge of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance.*fn2 On the same date, after trial without a jury, verdict was deferred pending submission of briefs. On September 29, 1982, the lower court rendered a verdict of guilty to the possession charge, and, being advised that appellant desired to waive his right to appeal that decision, pronounced sentence. Appellant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of two and one-half (2 1/2) to five (5) years imprisonment. Appellant filed this timely appeal.

Appellant states the first issue as follows:

A. Did the Sentencing Court err by failing to place on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed upon Robert Reed Holler?

Brief for Appellant at 3.

The standards that this court follows in sentencing cases are clear:

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

[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 307]

    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 and remand for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Young, [272 Pa. Super. 82, 414 A.2d 679 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.