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. KEITH E. ROYER (04/27/84)

filed: April 27, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KEITH E. ROYER, APPELLANT



No. 719 Pittsburgh, 1983, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Venango County at No. S.D. 260 of 1982.

COUNSEL

David M. Axinn, Public Defender, Franklin, for appellant.

William G. Martin, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Franklin, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Cavanaugh, Johnson and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Cavanaugh

[ 328 Pa. Super. Page 63]

Appellant, Keith E. Royer, entered a guilty plea to the second count of a charge of corruption of the morals of a

[ 328 Pa. Super. Page 64]

    minor. His sentence included a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment of not less than two nor more than four years.*fn1 Appellant's petition to modify the sentence was denied and he has appealed from the judgment of sentence.

In this case, the offense occurred on November 25, 1982, and sentence is subject to the sentencing guidelines set forth in 204 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 303, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721. The sentence imposed was outside the range of the sentencing guidelines, although within the maximum sentence for the offense committed, and therefore falls within the requirement of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) which provides:

In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing pursuant to section 2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing) and made effective pursuant to section 2155, the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant.

The appellant contends that although the court gave its reasons for imposition of sentence on the record at the sentencing proceedings there was no "contemporaneous written statement" of the reasons for deviating from the guidelines, sufficient to satisfy the above requirements.

Initially, we note that there are two sets of "guidelines" for imposition of sentence. The earlier legislative "guidelines" are actually factors to be considered in weighing sentencing alternatives found in the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9701, and deal in general with the ...


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.