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. MARGARET SHERIDAN (09/11/85)

submitted: September 11, 1985.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET SHERIDAN



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 7, 1985 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, NO. 84-05-487, 489/491.

COUNSEL

Harriet R. Brumberg, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellant.

David E. Shapiro, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Wieand, Cercone and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Cercone

[ 348 Pa. Super. Page 576]

This case is a direct Commonwealth appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed on appellee following her plea of guilty to four (4) counts of delivery of a controlled substance. 35 Pa.S. § 780-113(a)(30). The mitigated minimum sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712 et seq., is two (2) to four (4) months imprisonment for each of appellee's four convictions.*fn1 Appellee was sentenced to five (5) years strict drug probation subject to many conditions.*fn2 The Commonwealth appeals, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781,*fn3 alleging that the lower court's deviation from the sentencing guidelines is manifestly unreasonable under the statutorily-mandated totality of the circumstances

[ 348 Pa. Super. Page 577]

    analysis as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d). As a corollary argument, the Commonwealth asserts that the sentencing court failed to provide an adequate contemporaneous statement of its reasons for the sentence.

In Commonwealth v. Drumgoole, supra, the level of review to be used by this court was succinctly set forth, wherein it is stated:

The legislature has provided that the appellate court, in reviewing the discretionary aspects of a sentence on appeal, shall affirm the trial court's sentence unless it finds: (1) that the guidelines were erroneously applied; (2) that the sentence even though within the guidelines, is "clearly unreasonable"; or (3) that the sentence, if outside the guidelines, "is unreasonable". In any one of these three circumstances, we are required to vacate the trial court's sentence and remand the case with instructions. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c). In determining whether a particular sentence is "clearly unreasonable" or "unreasonable", the appellate court must consider the defendant's background and characteristics as well as the particular circumstances of the offense involved, the trial court's opportunity to observe the defendant, the pre-sentence investigation report, if any, the Sentencing Guidelines as promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, and the "findings" upon which the trial court based its sentence.

341 Pa. Superior at 473, 491 A.2d at 1354. After reviewing the record in this case, we find that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence and that its stated reasons for imposing probationary sentence are supported by the record.

At the reconsideration of sentence hearing,*fn4 the court enumerated several factors which it had ...


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.