« Is former Prez Trump going to release a new short list of possible Supreme Court nominees? | Main | "Drug Policy, Drug War, and Disparate Sentencing" »
September 30, 2024
Pennsylvania Supreme Court finds legal error when sentencing court "relied upon prior arrests as a sentencing factor"
A helpful colleague made sure I did not miss an interesting new opinion from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Berry, No. 16 EAP 2023, J-9A-2024 (Pa. Sept. 26, 2024) (available here). Here is how the unanimous 24-page ruling gets started:
James Berry was convicted of several crimes arising from his sexual abuse of two young family members. For purposes of tabulating the applicable recommended sentencing range under the under the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines, Berry had no prior convictions or juvenile adjudications, which resulted in a “prior record score” of zero. The sentencing court ultimately imposed a sentence that deviated significantly upward from the standard sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines. Explaining its reasons on the record, the court stated that Berry’s arrest record (which the court characterized as “previous other contacts” with the criminal legal system) essentially negated Berry’s absence of a prior criminal record.
Challenging the discretionary aspects of this sentence, Berry appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. Upon allowance of appeal, we must decide whether a sentencing court lawfully may consider Berry’s record of prior arrests, which did not result either in juvenile adjudications or adult convictions, as a factor at sentencing. Because arrests without conviction “happen[ ] to the innocent as well as the guilty,” they offer nothing probative about a defendant’s background at sentencing. Thus, the sentencing court misapplied the law by predicating the sentence in part upon Berry’s arrest record. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and we remand for resentencing.
There is considerable nuance in this opinion, as the court avoided reaching the defendant's constitutional claim based in due process by ruling in his favor as a matter of state stautory law. In addition, the court also avoided addressing prosecutors' arguement that it would be proper for a sentencing judge to consider conduct underlying an arrest because the "sentencing court provided no indication on the record that, as to Berry’s arrest record, it considered anything other than the fact of prior arrests."
September 30, 2024 at 09:35 AM | Permalink
Comments
To use the historical example, was it okay to impose a lengthy sentence on Al Capone for tax evasion? And, if it is okay, how much information and how reliable must that information be to justify that type of sentence.
Any prosecutor who has worked for any length of time has had that case (and probably several of them) in which a defendant has been a "person of interest" in multiple serious cases but the only case that is chargeable is a mid-level offense. Because the offense is one for which an offender would typically get probation, must/should the prosecutor ignore the information suggesting that the defendant is a significant danger to the community who is not amenable to probation and release them back into the community until the police have a case against them for the next serious offense?
I would strongly disagree that an arrest offers nothing probative about an offender. Now how probative and whether the probative effect outweighs the prejudicial effect depends on the strength of the evidence that the offender committed one of those prior arrests.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 30, 2024 12:03:19 PM
