Background
After a retail-theft conviction and probationary sentence, the defendant accumulated new convictions and charges. At a Gagnon II revocation hearing, the court revoked probation and imposed six to thirty-six months of incarceration, consecutive to a ten-to-twenty-year Philadelphia sentence.
The adult probation officer advised that the applicable range was restorative sanctions with an aggravated range extending through restrictive intermediate punishment to three months. The court expressly followed that recommendation and said it was imposing an aggravated-range sentence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the six-month minimum actually exceeded the aggravated range.
The dispute required application of Pennsylvania’s seventh-edition resentencing guidelines. Because the revocation rested on a new conviction, the guidelines required an adjusted prior-record score and a recalculated range.
The Court’s Holding
In a nonprecedential memorandum by Judge Panella, the Superior Court vacated and remanded. The correct standard resentencing range was restorative sanctions to two months, with an aggravated range of three to five months. The six-month minimum was therefore above, not within, the aggravated range.
Two related errors required relief. The probation officer supplied an incorrect range that did not account for the resentencing provisions and referenced intermediate punishment even though that classification had been repealed in 2019. The revocation court then relied on that advice and misunderstood the location of its chosen sentence.
A sentencing court may exercise discretion to depart from guidelines, but it must first calculate the correct starting point and recognize that it is departing. Because the court intended a guideline sentence yet applied the guidelines erroneously, Section 9781 required vacatur and reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- Revocation sentencing begins with the edition and resentencing rules applicable to the original offense.
- A new conviction can require adjustment of the prior-record score under the resentencing guidelines.
- Restrictive intermediate punishment is obsolete terminology and should not be used to calculate a current range.
- A court must know the correct guideline range before exercising discretion to depart from it.
Why It Matters
The memorandum underscores that revocation hearings require a fresh, documented guideline calculation. Counsel should ask that the worksheet or source relied upon by probation be identified and made part of the record.
A sentence outside the range is not automatically invalid. The decisive problem here was that the court believed it was inside the aggravated range. Correct calculations preserve meaningful discretion and meaningful appellate review.