Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Annual Report 2016

Transcription

1 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Annual Report 2016 Sentencing in Pennsylvania

2 2017 Chair Hon. Sheila A. Woods-Skipper President Judge, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Vice Chair Hon. Jill E. Rangos Judge, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Members Hon. Rita Donovan Hathaway Judge, Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas Professor Rachel E. Lopez, J.D., LL.M. Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Drexel University Hon. Daniel J. Milliron Judge, Blair County Court of Common Pleas Hon. Brandon P. Neuman Pennsylvania House of Representatives Hon. John C. Rafferty, Jr. Senate of Pennsylvania Mark B. Sheppard, Esq. Defense Attorney Hon. Todd Stephens Pennsylvania House of Representatives Hon. Sharif Street Senate of Pennsylvania Hon. David A. Strouse Clinton County District Attorney Ex Officio Members Hon. Leo L. Dunn, Esq. Chair, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Hon. John E. Wetzel Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Hon. Jennifer Storm Pennsylvania Victim Advocate Executive Director Mark H. Bergstrom

3 Sentencing in Pennsylvania Carol Zeiss 2016 Annual Report President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Chair Judge Jill E. Rangos, Vice Chair

4 Calder Square II, Suite East Calder Way State College, PA Location Mailing Address PO Box 1200 State College, PA Forum Building Capitol Complex Harrisburg, PA Telephone Fax SGS Web Help Desk (statewide) Sentencing Assistance / Questions Northwest: Carrie Peters Northeast: Nancy Xavios Southwest: Ryan Meyers Southeast: Nancy Xavios Please visit the Commission s web site for more detailed information. URL: Cover Photo Courtesy of Carol Zeiss

5 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA D University Park Campus 204 E. Calder Way, Suite 400 State College, PA Phone (814) Fax (814) D Capitol Complex 408 Forum Building Harrisburg, PA Phone (717) Fax (717) PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING P.O. Box 1200 State College, PA September 1, 2017 The Honorable Members of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania The Honorable Thomas G. Saylor, Chief Justice of Pennsylvania The Honorable Tom Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania The Citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania It is with great pleasure that we present the s 2016 Annual Report. This report details the work of the Commission and its staff during 2016 and provides a review of sentencing practices and aggregate statewide sentencing data during the same calendar year. A total of 142,311 offenses with corresponding sentences were reported to the Commission by the Courts of Common Pleas through February 2017, representing 96,590 criminal incidents. Sentences for calendar year 2016 reported on or after March 1, 2017 will be included in revised tables to be posted on the Commission s web site in December The Commission is indebted to court officials and practitioners throughout the Commonwealth who contributed their efforts and to the many agencies at both the state and local levels who partner with the Commission. The Commission also appreciates the work of members and staff. It recognizes the contributions of Commission members departing the Commission: Profession Steven L. Chanenson, who served as Chair; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris; and District Attorney Francis J. Schultz. Additionally, appreciation is expressed to ex officio members: John Tuttle, Acting Chair, and Michael L. Green, Chair, of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. During 2016, the Commission worked on numerous projects. The preliminary Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument was developed (in accordance with Act 95 of 2010), and staff worked with pilot counties to understand individual county processes and how risk assessment at sentencing may be integrated. The Commission began work to address new mandated sentencing enhancements for the next amendment to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. Staff continue to work toward development of county and state parole guidelines and resentencing guidelines (Acts 81 and 83 of 2008) through research and analysis. Extensive outreach activities included seminars on sentencing, presentations, and responding to many inquiries. Enhancements and modifications were made to SGS Web. Sentencing data and impact analyses provided input on legislative proposals. The Commission continues to make additional sentencing data reports available online for policy makers, researchers, and the public so they can access and query aggregate sentencing information. As an agency of the General Assembly, the is charged with the responsibility of serving as a clearinghouse and information center for the collection, preparation, and dissemination of information on Commonwealth sentencing practices, and with assisting courts and agencies in the development, maintenance, and coordination of sound sentencing policies. We hope that the information contained in this report, as well as that available through our web site ( and from our staff, will be used to promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respectfully submitted, Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Jill E. Rangos

6 Table of Contents PART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK...1 THE ORGANIZATION... 2 Legislative Mandate...2 Duties of the Commission...2 Legislative Agency Benefiting from University Resources...3 Composition...3 THE PEOPLE... 4 Commission Members, Commission Members, 1979 to Present...5 Commission Staff, THE INFRASTRUCTURE... 7 Committees, Budget...8 Grants...9 SGS Web...10 THE WORK...12 Commission...12 Commission Meetings...12 Commission Committee Highlights...12 Supporting Criminal Justice Practitioners...13 Seminars...13 Newsletter...13 Web Sites...13 Sentencing / SGS Web Assistance...14 Courses Taught...15 Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument Interim Reports...15 Annual Villanova Sentencing Workshop...15 Presentations...16 Staff Committee Work...17 Supporting Decision Makers...18 Testimony...18 Legislative Reports...18 Data and Information...18 Online Data Reports...18 Impact of Proposed Legislation...18 Legislation Enacted...19 Relevant Case Law...19 Research...20 Responding to Initiatives: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing...22 Introduction...22 Sentencing in Pennsylvania...22 Pennsylvania s Sentencing Guidelines...23 Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Pennsylvania...23 Evolution of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes in Pennsylvania...24 Current State of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes in Pennsylvania...25 Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes...26 Moving Forward...27 Summary...28 Table of Contents

7 Table of Contents continued PART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS...29 INTRODUCTION TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES...30 Sentencing Guidelines...30 Guideline Editions...30 Conformity...31 Sentencing Alternatives...31 Problem Solving Courts...31 Enhancements...31 Mandatory Sentences...32 Concurrent/Consecutive Sentences...32 Incarceration Sentences...32 Aggregation...32 Place of Confinement/Paroling Authority...32 State Incarceration and Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program...33 County Incarceration and Reentry...33 Reporting Requirements...33 Reporting Inchoate Offenses...33 Online Data Reports...33 Defining a Sentence for Reporting...34 Qualifiers and Disclaimers...35 AN OVERVIEW OF SENTENCING IN Sentences...36 Offenders...40 Conformity to Guidelines...41 County and State Intermediate Punishment Alternatives...42 Economic Sanctions...42 Juvenile Offenders...42 Annual Report 2016

8 Table of Contents continued PART III: DATA TABLES...43 Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County...44 Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines...46 Table 3. Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines...47 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County...48 Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type...50 Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County...52 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only)...54 Table 7. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type...56 Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County...58 Table 9. Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses...60 Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County...62 Table 11. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (DUI Offenses Only)...64 Table 12. Place of Confinement by County (2 to less than 5 Year Maximum Sentence)...66 Table 13. Place of Confinement by Offense Type (2 to less than 5 Year Maximum Sentence)...68 Table 14. Percent Incarcerated by OGS and PRS...70 Table 15. Incarceration Sentences with Deadly Weapon Enhancements...71 Table 15A. Incarceration Sentences with Youth or School Enhancements...73 Table 16. Mandatory Sentences by Offense Type (Excluding Driving Under the Influence)...74 Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County...76 Table 18. Conformity to the Guidelines by Offense Type...78 Table 19. Conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Offenses...80 Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS...82 Table 21. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison...84 Table 21A. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison (DUI Only)...84 Table 22. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail...85 Table 22A. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail (DUI Only)...85 Table 23. State and County Intermediate Punishment Eligibility and Sentences...86 Table 24. Type of Sentences Imposed by Sentencing Guideline Level...87 Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score...88 Table 26. Economic Sanctions and Assessments...90 Table 27. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 Years Old)]...91 Table 28. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Age [Juvenile Offenders Only (<18 Years Old)]...91 Table 29. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County [Juvenile Offenders Only (<18 Years Old)]...92 Table 30. Completed or Inchoate Offenses by Offense Type...94 Table 31. Megan s Law Offenses by Offense Type...96 APPENDICES...97 A. New Offense Listing...98 B. Case Law Highlights...99 C. Sentencing Alternatives D. Pennsylvania s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Provisions E. Statutory Limits F. Sentencing Enhancements G1. 7th Edition Amendment 3 Basic Sentencing Guideline Matrix G2. 7th Edition Amendment 3 Basic Sentencing Guideline Matrix for Offenders Under Age 18 Convicted of 1st or 2nd Degree Murder H. Abbreviations I. Pennsylvania Counties Table of Contents

9 PART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK

10 PART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK THE ORGANIZATION Legislative Mandate The original mandate of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is to create and maintain a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy. Created in 1978 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly (42 Pa.C.S. 2154), the Commission is charged with adopting guidelines that promote fairer and more uniform sentencing throughout the Commonwealth. It does so by providing every judge with a common reference point for sentencing similar offenders convicted of similar crimes. Acts 81 and 83 of 2008, effective November 24, 2008, direct the Commission to develop parole guidelines to be considered by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and any other paroling authority (42 Pa.C.S ). Additionally, guidelines are to be developed for resentencing following revocation of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment, as well as state parole recommitment ranges for consideration following revocation of state parole. This process enhances accountability and transparency, and more closely aligns state and county parole procedures. Act 95 of 2010 directed the Commission to adopt a sentencing risk assessment instrument to aid in evaluating offenders relative risk to public safety and reoffending. Carol A. Zeiss Duties of the Commission Adopt sentencing guidelines that address the seriousness of the offense, criminal history and criminal behavior of the offender, and aggravated and mitigated circumstances. Adopt fines guidelines or community service in lieu of all or part of fines. Adopt a sentence risk assessment instrument as part of the process to further refine sentencing guidelines in terms of risk to public safety. Adopt guidelines to identify offenders who would be eligible for and appropriate to participate in county intermediate punishment programs or state intermediate punishment. Adopt guidelines for resentencing upon revocation of a sentence of state or county intermediate punishment or probation that address factors considered in the original sentence, the seriousness of the violation, and the rehabilitative needs of the offender. Adopt guidelines for county and state parole and re-parole that address public and victim safety, encourage good conduct and program participation, and prioritize resource utilization. Adopt state parole recommitment ranges that take into account the seriousness of the initial conviction, seriousness of the violation, and the rehabilitative needs of the offender. Establish a research and development program. Function as an information clearinghouse on Commonwealth sentencing, resentencing, and parole practices. Publish data concerning sentencing and parole processes. Collect and disseminate information regarding sentences imposed and the effectiveness of sentences imposed and parole dispositions. Serve in a consulting capacity to state courts. Make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning modification or enactment of sentencing, parole, and correctional statutes to carry out an effective, humane, and rational sentencing, resentencing, and parole policy. Systematically monitor conformity with sentencing, resentencing, and parole guidelines, with the risk assessment instrument, with state parole recommitment ranges, and with mandatory sentencing laws. 2 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

11 Legislative Agency Benefiting From University Resources The Commission was created by and remains closely tied to the state legislature. In 1986, it was designated an agency of the General Assembly, and in 2003, it was designated a Pennsylvania criminal justice agency. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees provide oversight of the Commission. The Commission s members, appointed from the ranks of judges, legislators, and criminal justice professionals, provide direction and authorize action. The Penn State Connection Headquarters are housed on the University Park Campus of The Pennsylvania State University under an agreement first established in Penn State provides office space and administrative support at no cost, and the Commission contracts with faculty and students to conduct sentencing-related research. Duquesne and Villanova Universities Working relationships with the law schools at Duquesne University and Villanova University similarly enhance the education of law students. By agreement with each university, the Commission provides assistance for student research and the executive director s time in the classroom as adjunct faculty. The Commission gains additional support for its research efforts and access to meeting space for workshops, training, and continuing education in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas. The Commission provides: opportunities for students to develop research and practical skills; a full-time research associate to assist Penn State faculty and students using Commission data; and 45% of the salary for a tenured faculty member to undertake Commission research, as well as two half-time graduate research assistantships and two part-time undergraduate research assistantships. Penn State students also benefit from experience brought to the classroom by the Commission s executive director who regularly teaches courses on campus. In 2007, the Commission established an office in the Forum Building, Capitol Complex, to enhance it s relationship with the General Assembly and other state agencies. Andy Cowell Composition The Commission, by statute, consists of 11 members. Commission members are appointed for two-year terms and serve without compensation. They serve until a replacement is named. The Chief Justice of Pennsylvania selects four judges. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate appoints two senators (one from each caucus). The Speaker of the House of Representatives appoints two members (one from each caucus). The Governor chooses three members and must include a district attorney, a defense attorney, and a professor of law or criminologist. Three ex officio members serve on the Commission (42 Pa.C.S. 2154(a.1)): the Chair of the Board of Probation and Parole; the Secretary of the Department of Corrections; and the Victim Advocate. Annual Report

12 THE PEOPLE Commission Members, 2016 Chair President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Philadelphia County Commission member April 2006 present, Chair January 2016 present, Vice Chair December 2012 December 2015 Vice Chair Judge Jill E. Rangos, Allegheny County Commission member April 2009 present, Vice Chair January 2016 present Members Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway Westmoreland County June 2011 present Representative Todd Stephens Montgomery County (part) (R) July present Senatur Arthur L. Haywood III Montgomery (part), Philadelphia (part) Counties (D) May May 2017 Professor Rachel E. Lopez, J.D., LL.M. Drexel University December present Judge Daniel J. Milliron Blair County December 2012 present Representative Brandon P. Neuman Washington County (part) (D) May 2015 present Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr. Berks (part), Chester (part), and Montgomery (part) Counties (R) January present Defense Attorney Mark B. Sheppard Chester County December 2015 present District Attorney David Strouse Clinton County November present Ex Officio Members PA Board of Probation and Parole Leo L. Dunn, Esquire, Chairman PA Department of Corrections John E. Wetzel, Secretary PA Office of Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm, Victim Advocate Departing Commission Members Professor Steven L. Chanenson Villanova University School of Law January 2002 December 2015 Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris September 2011 December 2015 District Attorney Francis J. Schultz Crawford County July 2012 November 2016 Departing Ex Officio Members John Tuttle, Acting Chair Michael L. Green, Chair PA Board of Probation and Parole Part I: The Commission and Its Work

13 Commission Members, 1979 to Present Senator: Democrat James R. Kelley 1979 Hardy Williams 1983 John W. Regoli 1987 H. Craig Lewis 1989 Michael E. Bortner 1991 Jack Wagner 1995 Jay Costa, Jr Daylin B. Leach 2011 Arthur L. Haywood, III 2015 Sharif Street 2017 Senator: Republican George W. Gekas 1979 Stewart J. Greenleaf 1983 David W. Heckler (VC, C) 1995 Jeffrey E. Piccola (VC) 1997 Mary Jo White (VC, C) 2003 John C. Rafferty, Jr Representative: Democrat Norman S. Berson 1979 Joseph M. Hoeffel 1983 Paul F. McHale 1983 Michael E. Bortner 1987 Frank Dermody (VC, C) 1991 John P. Sabatina, Jr Brandon P. Neuman 2015 Representative: Republican Anthony J. Scirica 1979 Terrence F. McVerry 1979 Daniel F. Clark 1989 Brett O. Feese 1995 William I. Gabig 2001 Mark S. McNaughton 2003 Douglas G. Reichley (VC) 2007 Todd Stephens 2012 Judicial Appointment 1 Curtis C. Carson 1979 Charles L. Durham 1985 John L. Braxton (C) 1991 Charles C. Brown, Jr. (VC) 1995 Jeannine Turgeon 2003 Harold F. Woelfel, Jr Rita Donovan Hathaway 2011 Judicial Appointment 2 Richard P. Conaboy (C) 1979 Lynne M. Abraham (VC) 1981 Theodore A. McKee (VC, C) 1986 James A. Lineberger 1995 Renee Cardwell Hughes 1998 Sheila A. Woods-Skipper (VC, C) 2006 Judicial Appointment 3 Merna B. Marshall 1979 Anthony J. Scirica (C) 1980 Melvin G. Levy (VC, C) 1985 Ricardo C. Jackson 1992 Robert E. Dauer 1997 Jeffrey A. Manning 2002 Jill E. Rangos (VC) 2009 Judicial Appointment 4 John W. O Brien (C) 1979 Robert E. Dauer (C) 1990 Cynthia Baldwin 1996 Gary P. Caruso 1998 Michael T. Conahan 2002 Gary P. Caruso 2004 Linda K. M. Ludgate 2008 Daniel J. Milliron 2012 District Attorney Robert E. Colville 1979 Frank Hazel 1981 Richard A. Lewis 1983 Theresa Ferris-Dukovich 1990 Merritt E. Ted McKnight (VC) 1996 Marjorie J. Fox 2007 Francis J. Schultz 2012 David A. Strouse 2016 Defense Attorney Michael J. Minney 1979 Charles F. Scarlata 1981 Warren H. Spencer 1985 John P. Moses 1990 William T. C. Tully 1996 Marc S. Raspanti 2007 Royce L. Morris 2011 Mark B. Sheppard 2015 Professor Alfred S. Pelaez (VC) 1979 David A. Jones 1981 Alfred Blumstein 1986 Laurie Magid 1996 Steven L. Chanenson (VC, C) 2002 Rachel E. Lopez 2015 Ex Officio Commission Members Board of Probation & Parole Chairman Catherine C. McVey 2008 Lloyd A. White (Acting) 2011 Michael C. Potteiger 2012 Lloyd A. White 2014 John Tuttle (Acting) 2015 Michael L. Green 2015 Leo L. Dunn, Esq Department of Corrections Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D Shirley Moore Smeal (Acting) 2010 John Wetzel 2011 PA Victim Advocate Carol L. Lavery 2008 Jennifer Storm 2013 Executive Director John H. Kramer 1979 Mark H. Bergstrom 1998 Annual Report

14 Commission Staff, 2016 Executive Mark H. Bergstrom, executive director Cynthia Kempinen, Ph.D., deputy director Administrative Jodi R. Ripka, fiscal/office manager Catherine W. Dittman, staff assistant *Susan M. Shaffer, staff assistant Data Management Carol A. Zeiss, manager Linda M. Bell, SGS Web support Caroline Pierce, data management analyst Robert E. Probst, lead data input specialist Qing Zhang, data management analyst Outreach and Policy Support *Diane E. Shoop, Ph.D., manager Ryan S. Meyers, sentencing policy specialist *Finesse S. Moreno-Rivera, data analyst Carrie L. Peters, sentencing policy specialist *Helene J. Placey, sentencing policy specialist *Nancy S. Xavios, sentencing policy specialist Research and Analysis Leigh A. Tinik, manager Haiou Hu, data analyst Melissa Parks, data analyst *Harrisburg-based positions In addition to the full-time University Park and Harrisburg-based staff listed, the Commission employed graduate and undergraduate research assistants from Penn State s Department of Sociology and Criminology and legal research assistants from Duquesne and Villanova Universities. Contracted employees include law professor Joseph Sabino Mistick (Duquesne University) and Criminology Professor R. Barry Ruback (The Pennsylvania State University). The Commission also provided contracted services for collaborative projects with statewide application through grant-related positions. Commission Organizational Chart 2016 Chair: President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper Vice Chair: Judge Jill E. Rangos Executive Director Mark H. Bergstrom Counsel Joseph Sabino Mistick, Esq. Deputy Director Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D. PSU Research Partnership Administrative Support Office Manager Jodi Ripka Data Management Manager Carol Zeiss Outreach and Policy Support Manager* Diane E Shoop, Ph.D. Research and Analysis Manager Leigh Tinik Staff Assistant (75%) Catherine W. Dittman Data Management Analyst Caroline Pierce Data Analyst* Finesse Moreno-Rivera Data Analyst Haiou Hu Staff Assistant* (75%) Susan M. Shaffer Data Management Analyst Qing Zhang Sentencing Policy Specialist Ryan Meyers Data Analyst Melissa Parks Lead Data Input Robert Probst Sentencing Policy Specialist Carrie Peters SGS Web Support Linda Bell Sentencing Policy Specialist* Helene Placey Part-Time Staff Harrisburg Office Commission Complement 19 FTE Contracted Services PSU/MOU Research (45% faculty; 2 graduate students; 2 undergraduate students Legal Services IT Support SGS Web Support Sentencing Policy Specialist* Nancy Xavios 6 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

15 THE INFRASTRUCTURE Committees, 2016 Executive and Administrative Support Role: Oversees Executive and Administrative Units, with review of budget and personnel issues; establishes general policies and promulgates rules and regulations for the Commission as necessary. Reviews contracts, leases and cooperative agreements with government agencies and private contractors for services, personnel, and equipment required by the Commission. Given that the Commission is an agency of the General Assembly and the Executive and Administrative Committee oversees the management of the Commission, the membership of the committee includes the Chair of the Commission and all Legislative members. The Chair of the Commission is the Chair of the Executive and Administrative Committee. Members Pres. Judge Woods-Skipper, chair Judge Rangos, vice chair Sen. Haywood Sen. Rafferty Rep. Neuman Rep. Stephens Data Management Role: Oversees Data Management Unit, with review of data collection and preparation, SGS Web application development and enhancements, JNET support and automated data exchange with other agencies. Responsible for oversight of Data Management Plan and review of any sensitive, protected, or personallyidentifiable (PII) information obtained, used, or disseminated by the Commission. Members Judge Milliron, chair Sen. Haywood Sen. Rafferty Strategic Planning Work Group The Strategic Planning Work Group was created in 2014 to help the Commission conduct a comprehensive review of sentencing and related policy issues, including the sentencing guidelines that have been in effect for more than three decades. Under the leadership of the Commission s Chair, Professor Steven L. Chanenson, the Work Group includes judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, court and corrections officials, and numerous agency and organizational representatives and subject-matter experts. Commission Executive Director Mark H. Bergstrom and Commission staff members also participate in the Work Group. Outreach and Policy Support Role: Oversees Outreach and Policy Support Unit, with review of sentencing, correctional and parole statutes; makes recommendations to the General Assembly to maintain an effective, humane, and rational sentencing and parole policy. Oversees a clearinghouse and information center for Commonwealth sentencing and parole practices. Reviews appellate court decisions and legislation. Coordinates the development and implementation of guidelines for fines and economic sanctions, sentencing and resentencing, and parole; the development of recommitment ranges and the identification of eligible offenders for county intermediate punishment, state intermediate punishment, and motivational boot camp. Oversees education and outreach efforts, as well as coordinates policy -related work groups and conducts informational meetings. Serves as committee-of-the-whole (all members) for development and review of guidelines and policies. The Vice -Chair of the Commission is Chair of the Outreach and Policy Support Committee. Members Judge Rangos, chair Defense Attorney Sheppard District Attorney Schultz (for purposes of policy development and review: all Commission members and ex officio members) Research and Analysis Role: Oversees Research and Analysis Unit, including research partnerships and contracts, with review of the Commission s research agenda and legislative mandates; including requirements to monitor, evaluate, and produce reports on state intermediate punishment and recidivism risk reduction incentive program; and dissemination of information on the effectiveness of sentences imposed and related matters. Responsible for oversight of the Release of Information Policy, sentencing simulation, impact analysis, resource utilization, and public access to Commission data. Members Judge Hathaway, chair Prof. Lopez Rep. Neuman Rep. Stephens Meeting regularly over a period of 16 months (including three meetings in 2016), this fresh look at sentencing guidelines culminated in recommendations to the Commission. Annual Report

16 Budget The Commission received a state appropriation of $1.81 million and $400,000 in Justice Reinvestment Funds for fiscal year 2015/2016. It was 93% of the total operating budget. $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Total Operating Budget State Appropriations Federal Grant Funds Operating Budget Fisal Years 2010/2011 to 2015/2016 Federal grants for specific projects comprised the remainder, as the following graph and chart illustrate. 2010/ / / / / /16 State Appropriations and Federal Grants: Fiscal Years 2010/2011 to 2015/2016 State Federal Total Fiscal Year Appropriation Grant Funds Operating Budget 2010/2011 $1,397,000 $376,419 i $1,773, /2012 $1,327,000 $174,372 $1,501, /2013 $1,800,000 $571,024 $2,371, /2014 $1,812,000 ii $371,155 $2,183, /2015 $2,101,000 iii $132,552 $2,233, /2016 $2,218,000 iv $132,522 $2,350,552 i ii Includes $66,130 in ARRA funds Includes $12,000 Justice Reinvestment Initiative Funds (JRI) iii iv Includes $283,000 JRI Fund Includes $400,000 in JRI funds. Legislature provided $377,000 in reserve and $370,000 in supplement for emergency funding During fiscal year 2015/2016, the Commission expended $1.95 million in state appropriations in order to undertake its work. Personnel costs consumed the largest proportion of funds. Expenditures by Category: Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Operating, 8% Travel, 5% Consultants*, 30% Salaries, 57% * Technology Consultants SGS Web application modifications, enhancements, and development 8 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

17 Grants During fiscal year 2015/2016, the Commission expended $132,522 in Byrne Justice Grants (JAG). Grant funds applied to the following projects: Grant Name Amount County Revocation and Resentencing Data Collection $ 26,658 Populations Projections Model $25,000 Sentencing Technical Assistance and Training $80,894 Total $132,522 County Revocation and Resentencing Data Collection - Implemented and oversaw a county-based data collection and analysis project that captured information on revocations of state intermediate punishment, county intermediate punishment, and probation sentences and the subsequent resentences. The goal was to better understand high admissions of short minimum diversion incentives to the Department of Corrections as well as capture probation information. The grant covered portions of the 2015/2016 fiscal year (July 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016). Sentencing Technical Assistance and Training - Partially supports the Commission in provision of educational seminars, technical assistance, and other activities related to sentencing and sentencing guidelines. The grant period covered a portion of the 2015/2016 fiscal year (January 1 through June 30, 2016). Population Projections Model - RFP issued and grant awarded. Vendor reviewed three agencies simulation and projection modules, provided recommendations for improvements to optimize utilization, and made suggestions regarding integration of modules. Annual Report

18 SGS Web The Commission s legislative mandate to collect and disseminate information on Commonwealth sentencing practices shaped the progression of gathering sentencing information. The original paper forms were phased out, first by the PC-based Sentencing Guideline Software introduced in 1998, and more effectively by the web-based application, SGS Web, introduced four years later in Benefitting from the secure environment available at Pennsylvania s Justice Network (JNET), SGS Web allows on-line calculation of the sentencing guidelines for judges consideration at the time of sentence. Efficiency and accuracy are improved through retrieval of offense information from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). Effective July 1, 2005, SGS Web officially replaced paper forms to fulfill the county requirement to report sentences to the Commission. Users of SGS Web can quickly determine the correct guideline recommendations and print a guideline sentence form for use by the court. The law requires these forms to be submitted to correctional facilities when offenders are committed. Electronic reporting is more efficient, accuracy is improved, and data are available for use in much less time than under previous paper-based systems. Today, SGS Web serves as the Commission s calculation and collection tool and its repository for sentencing data. The importance of this data collection effort cannot be underestimated. The Commission uses sentencing data to determine conformity; to project impacts of changes in the law, policy, or practice; to assess the impact of guidelines and mandatory sentences; to monitor sentencing trends; and to project the impact of policy changes on prison and jail populations. SGS Web is an evolving application and has been updated regularly during its lifetime. Revisions to the application have improved function, responded to changes in the sentencing guidelines, reflected changes in statute, and incorporated new responsibilities added to the Commission s statutory duties. For instance, the Corrections Reform Package of 2008 added several provisions to the law which required changes to SGS Web. Components which addressed RRRI sentences in state prison and reentry programs in county jail were instituted in December 2008 (when some provisions became effective). In April 2010, the Commission refined the county reentry fields in SGS Web to include specific types of reentry programs and time frames for offender eligibility (based on length of time, percent of sentence, or specific conditions required for eligibility). Additional requirements of the Corrections Reform Package entail changes of greater magnitude. The Revocation/Resentence Module for SGS Web is a result of Act 81 of 2008 which expanded the Commission duties to develop and implement guidelines for resentencing following revocation of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment (42 Pa.C.S ). The Revocation/ Resentence Module allows the Commission to collect information on revocations and resentences in order to guide the development of resentencing guidelines with information on current practices. This module was launched in November 2011 on a voluntary basis. Effective for sentences imposed on or after January 1, 2016, all subsequent revocations of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment are to be reported to the Commission. Other modifications were deployed with the release of the Revocation/Resentence module, including enhancements to the existing RRRI components. Also included in the release were: 1) new error checks to disallow the assignment of the same offender to both state prison and county jail in the same judicial proceeding; 2) a new message informing users when an offense is subject to the provisions of Megan s Law, and corresponding fields to indicate if the required assessment was ordered and completed; and 3) a feature to query the AOPC data base in order to find OTNs that should have been reported, but were not. The last item is a report made available to county users in Additionally, the Commission developed reports to help determine sentences pending submission to the Commission due to a lack of SID. The Commission s mandate (Act 95 of 2010) to develop a sentencing risk assessment instrument will be seen in SGS web. When deployed in SGS Web, it will assist in assessing an offender s risk of reoffending with any offense or reoffending with an offense against a person compared to a group of similar typical offenders. The risk instrument is not built into the Sentencing Guidelines; nor does it increase or decrease penalties. The Risk Assessment is solely informational, based on information that will be pre-populated into a form. The instrument will utilize previously submitted sentencing information and information from other criminal justice systems. An atypical score would lead to a recommendation that the court seek additional information on the offender. 10 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

19 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS Guideline Editions Legislation Impacts Commission Year Event 1978 Act 319 created the 1979 John H. Kramer, Ph.D., appointed 1st executive director of Commission st Edition Guidelines adopted, effective July Commission begins collecting sentencing information from the courts st Edition Guidelines amended, effective June st Edition Guidelines amended, effective January nd Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June Act 41 designated Commission an agency of the General Assembly 1987 PA Supreme Court invalidated all guidelines due to procedural error in 1981 when legislature rejected the Commission's initial set of guidelines 1988 Guidelines re-promulgated and 3rd Edition Guidelines adopted, effective April Commission designated a Legislative Service Agency 1990 Act 215 established Motivational Boot Camp. Commission mandated to provide annual evaluation and report to the legislature 1990 Acts 193 and 201 established county intermediate punishment as sentencing alternative rd Edition Guidelines amended to incorporate Motivational Boot Camp, effective August th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective August th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June Mark H. Bergstrom appointed executive director of the Commission 1998 SGS introduced 1999 Formal Release of Information Policy developed 2002 SGS Web available as part of Pennsylvania's Justice Network 2003 Commission designated a Pennsylvania Criminal Justice Agency Act 112 established state intermediate punishment as a new sentencing alternative. Commission mandated to 2004 provide evaluation and report to the legislature on state intermediate punishment and Motivational Boot Camp on alternating years 2005 Electronic reporting of sentences to Commission required (July 1) th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June Web-based sentencing simulation model development initiated 2007 Commission opened 2nd office located in 408 Forum Building, Capitol Complex, Harrisburg 2007 Act 37 required Commission to adopt guidelines for fines 2008 Records retention policy adopted 2008 Right-to-know policy adopted Acts 81 and 83 mandated development of parole and resentencing guidelines and recommitment ranges, 2008 systematic monitoring of compliance, and reporting on same. Requires Commission to provide evaluation and report on Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program to the legislature th Edition, Revised Guidelines adopted, effective December Study of the Impact and Use of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing submitted to PA House of Representatives as required by HR 12 of Act 95 directed the Commission to develop sentencing risk assessment instrument Legislature removes the mandate to provide evaluation and report on State Motivational Boot Camp (Act 95) Reports on state intermediate punishment and Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program moved to alternating years 2010 National Access to Criminal Records for State Sentencing Commissions Act of 2010 gives Commission access to criminal history records for federal offenses and offenses committed in other states 2011 Act 111 of 2011 requires Commission to establish procedures to enable Courts to classify sexual offenders th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective December th Edition Guidelines Amendment 1 adopted, effective September State Identification number required as part of sentencing information in SGS Web th Edition Guidelines Amendment 2 adopted, effective September Strategic Planning Work Group convened; recommendations provided in 2016 Other th Edition Guidelines Amendment 3 adopted, effective September 25 Annual Report

20 THE WORK Commission Commission Meetings The Commission is required by statute to meet at least four times per year and not less than semiannually. They are public meetings preceded by a work session. During 2016, four Commission meetings were held: March 3, June 2, September 8, and December 8. The Commission Committee Highlights Executive and Administrative Support Contracted for an independent audit of fiscal year 2015/2016. Worked with state s PennWatch group to advance Commission s efforts of transparency. Fiscal information is included in the online system. March, June, and December meetings were held in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, located in the Capitol Complex. September s meeting was held at the Commission s State College office. Outreach and Policy Support Identified education needs; scheduled and conducted seminars and training sessions on sentencing policy, practices, and guidelines. Informed stakeholders through two issues of The Monitor and updates to the web site. Worked with vendor to develop automated financial system. Conducted three meetings of the Strategic Planning Work Group. Overhauled computer security interface. Data Management Oversaw collection and dissemination of sentencing data and the compilation of sentencing information. Updated SGS Web to reflect changes to statute. Deployed a series of changes to SGS Web to prepare for implementation of the Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument for use at sentencing. Completed judge verification of sentencing data for Research and Analysis Completed and issued the 2016 Legislative Report on Pennsylvania s State Intermediate Program. Released one interim report on Phase 2 of the Risk Assessment Project: 1) Interim Report 2. Validation of Risk Assessment Instrument by OGS for all Offenses. Responded to Pennsylvania state decision-makers needs for data in addition to 56 sentencing data set requests made by 12 researchers and 66 requests for data reports. 12 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

21 Supporting Criminal Justice Practitioners Seminars The Commission devoted significant resources during 2016 to educational programs in sentencing, the application of sentencing guidelines, and specific topics for court professionals. During the year, 2,111 individuals attended seminars and trainings. Most seminars were CLE accredited; all were free-of-charge to Pennsylvania criminal justice professionals, including court staff, district attorneys, judges, probation and parole officers, public defenders, private attorneys, and others. The following is a summary of sentencing-related programs offered: Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing in Pennsylvania Covers the sentencing guidelines and provides a comprehensive explanation of offense gravity score, prior record score, and sentencing recommendations specific to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. Includes a review of sentencing statutes and policies, plus an overview of state intermediate punishment and recidivism risk reduction incentive programs. Two sessions each were held in Cranberry Township, Malvern, and State College. One session each held in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Scranton, Sunbury, Uniontown, and York. Sentencing Updates Provides an overview of recent amendments to the sentencing guidelines and updates to specific sentencing-related statutes. Three sessions were held in State College; two sessions were held in Harrisburg, one session each held in Bloomsburg, Erie, Pittsburgh and Williamsport. - County Intermediate Punishment and Sentencing Updates One session held for Lackawanna County court staff. - Introduction to Sentencing Guidelines One session held for members and staff of the General Assembly, Harrisburg. - Mini Sentencing Workshop One session held for selected upper level students and faculty of The Pennsylvania State University at the Commission s State College office. - Sentencing Guidelines Primer One session held for Montgomery County Court staff. Updates in Sentencing and Risk One session held for members and staff of the General Assembly, Harrisburg. - Update on Risk Assessment One session held for members and staff of the General Assembly, Harrisburg. - Working to Develop State Parole Guidelines One session held for members and staff of the General Assembly, Harrisburg. Newsletter Two issues of The Monitor were published during This newsletter provides sentencing-related updates to professionals working in the criminal justice system. Web Sites The Commission s web site received more than 19,930 visitors in While 54% of those visitors were new, 11,374 were unique visitors. The sentencing guidelines were the most often accessed pages. Sentencing Overview and Special Topics Provides a basic overview of sentencing processes and sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania, targeted to specific audience needs. Special topic or customized seminars are often requested by county agencies, courts, and other organizations. - Aggregation One session held for Dauphin County court staff. - Basic Prosecutors Course Two sessions for the PA District Attorneys Institute s Basic Prosecutors Course. - Basic Training Academy Six sessions held for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Basic Training Academy. The sentencing reports web site, available to criminal justice decision-makers as well as the public, was launched in It allows for the creation of a variety of dynamic reports and is accessible from the Commission s main web pages (see pages 18 and 33). In 2016, nearly 1,000 visits were recorded, with 76% being new visitors. Annual Report

22 Sentencing / SGS Web Assistance Commission staff provide assistance and support services for sentencing-related questions and technical assistance for SGS Web. During 2016, staff responded to 1,039 requests for information or assistance on sentencing and sentencing guidelines and more than 1,503 requests for technical assistance with SGS Web. Additionally, 232 requests for SGS Web user roles were processed. Staff responded to 12 Right-to-Know requests and 131 inmate letters. Sentencing and guideline questions are posed not only by judges and court staff but also by probation and parole officers, district attorneys, public defenders, defense attorneys, out-of-state agencies, and the general public. County court professional staff from Sentencing Questions or Guideline Assistance Regional Assignments across the Commonwealth accounted for 87% of sentencing assistance inquiries. Another 9% were from private defense attorneys. The Commission assigns sentencing policy specialists to the eastern and western regions of the state. The practice allows specialists to work more closely with counties on sentencing-related issues. Counties in the eastern region call or , and those in the western region call or Technical assistance for SGS Web users generally is requested by probation and parole officers, district attorneys, judges, court staff, and clerks of courts. All SGS Web questions may be directed to Northwest: Carrie Peters Northeast: Nancy Xavios Southwest: Ryan Meyers Southeast: Nancy Xavios Northwest Southwest Northeast Southeast Cameron Allegheny Bradford Adams Centre Armstrong Carbon Berks Clarion Beaver Columbia Bucks Clearfield Bedford Lackawanna Chester Clinton Blair Luzerne Cumberland Crawford Butler Lycoming Dauphin Elk Cambria Monroe Delaware Erie Fayette Montour Juniata Forest Franklin Northumberland Lancaster Jefferson Fulton Pike Lebanon Lawrence Greene Snyder Lehigh McKean Huntingdon Sullivan Montgomery Mercer Indiana Susquehanna Northampton Potter Mifflin Tioga Perry Venango Somerset Union Philadelphia Warren Washington Wayne Schuylkill Westmoreland Wyoming York 14 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

23 Courses Taught The executive director taught an undergraduate course in the spring and fall 2016 semesters for Penn State s Department of Sociology and Criminology. The course examines the role and impact of sentencing decisions within the criminal justice system. Additionally, the executive director taught an elective Duquesne University School of Law course during the spring and fall 2016 semesters. It examines all facets of criminal sanctions, including the procedures used to determine the sentence and the purposes of the imposition of sanctions. The course was redesigned to incorporate review and roundtable discussion of cases with judges and a Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole member. The executive director assisted in teaching an elective Villanova University School of Law course. As part of the Villanova Sentencing Workshop, the course brings together law students, judges, criminal law practitioners, and others to discuss sentencing policy through the lens of prescreened, actual cases. Annual Villanova Sentencing Workshop Each year, the Commission cohosts the Villanova Sentencing Workshop, held at the Villanova University School of Law. The heart of the workshop is studentjudge interaction and discussion of real cases submitted by the participating judges. The 2016 workshop was held over two multi-day sessions in February and April. It brought together 12 law students, 5 common pleas judges, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and other professionals to discuss sentencing policy through the lens of pre-screened, real cases. Before the sessions, participants reviewed voluminous case files, including police reports and court transcripts. They determined an appropriate sentence for each case and prepared brief sentencing memoranda explaining their decisions. This information was distributed to the other workshop participants to facilitate discussion of the cases. The sessions were devoted in large measure to discussion of the cases and learning about factors that go into the sentencing decision. The sentencing workshop traditionally held in Villanova University Law School was replicated in a condensed version. It was offered as a graduate course for select Criminology students of The Pennsylvania State University and held at the Commission s State College office. It was facilitated by the executive director. Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument Interim Reports As the Commission builds the foundation for a risk assessment tool for use at sentencing, it has prepared interim reports on its work. All 12 reports are available on the Commission s web site. See page 21 for more information. During 2016, the following report was released: Phase II, Interim Report 2. Validation of Risk Assessment Instrument by OGS for all Offenses. The 2016 workshop also included a parole component which assisted the Commission s efforts in developing parole guidelines. Participants were provided postsentencing documents including a state parole decisional instrument - in effect, a draft of guidelines developed by the PBPP for consideration of parole. They reviewed documents that supported risk/needs, institutional programming, and institutional behavior as well as other factors when considering reasons for granting or refusing parole and identifying requirements or special conditions. Prosecution and defense were represented by Delaware County Assistant District Attorney Sean P. McNabb and Adams County Chief Public Defender Kristin L. Rice. In addition, Pennslvania Board of Probation and Parole Board members Leo L. Dunn, Esq., and Michael C. Pottieger participated and shared their expertise in how parole decisions are made. Gregory H. Chelak, Pike County Court of Common Pleas Judiciary Member Participants in the 2016 Villanova Sentencing Workshop Carol L. Van Horn, Franklin and Fulton Counties Court of Common Pleas Katherine B. Emery, Washington County Court of Common Pleas Chris R. Wogan, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Albert H. Masland, Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Annual Report

24 Presentations The executive director presented the following during 2016: Pennsylvania Sentencing Overview. January 2016, Drexel University, Department of Criminology and Justice Studies, Philadelphia, PA. The New Science Behind Sentencing (Panel presentation). February 2016, Philadelphia Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Philadelphia, PA. Criminal Justice Reform and Justice Reinvestment Panel (moderator). April 2016, PCCD Criminal Justice Advisory Board Conference, State College, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. May 2016, Philadelphia Municipal Court Judges Retreat, Lafayette Hill, PA. Update Sentencing Guidelines and Risk Assessment. June 2016, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Criminal Law Symposium, Harrisburg, PA. The What Were These People Thinking When They Created the Sentencing Guidelines? June 2016, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Criminal Law Symposium, Harrisburg, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. June 2016, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. July 2016, Allegheny County Court Services, Public Defenders, Pittsburgh, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. July 2016, Blair County Board of Judges, Hollidaysburg, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. August 2016, Philadelphia Risk Management Project Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. September 2016, Allegheny County Criminal Court Judges Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. October 2016, Adams County Bar Association Conference, Gettysburg, PA. Media interviews were conducted with the executive director on: Risk Assessment at Sentencing. May 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek. Risk Assessment at Sentencing. June 2016, The New York Times (Chicago Bureau). Risk Assessment at Sentencing. June 2016, Cable News Network (CNN) (NY Bureau). Drug Sentencing. Network (CNN). July 2016, Cable News Additional technical assistance activities of the executive director included: Risk Assessment at Sentencing. October 2016, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association Executive Committee Roundtable Discussion, Harrisburg, PA. Expungement of Criminal Records (Senate Bill 1197). November 2016, Clean Slate Legislation Roundtable Discussion (Senator Scott Wagner), Harrisburg, PA. Sanction Grid and Technical Violations. December 2016, PBPP Technical Parole Violator Committee Roundtable Discussion, Harrisburg, PA. Background information and data were provided to the media: o Bucks County Courier Times (Doylestown) o KYW Radio (Philadelphia) o The Morning Call (Allentown) o Patriot News (Harrisburg) o Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia) o Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh) o Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh, Greensburg) o York Daily Record (York) Other staff members presented: CIP and Implementing a New Drug Court as CIP Sentence. September 2016, Venango County Courts, Franklin, PA. Integration of Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument into Sentencing Process. Multiple meetings with court practitioners of Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia and Westmoreland Counties. SGS Web Enhancements. June and December 2016, JNET County Integration meeting, State College, PA. Sentencing and SGS Web Updates. March, June, September, and December 2016, County Chief Adult Probation and Parole Officers Association of Pennsylvania meetings, State College, PA. 16 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

25 Staff Committee Work Commission staff members serve on numerous national, state, and local committees and boards to promote the understanding and use of sentencing guidelines and to help create and enhance consistent, rational, equitable, and fair sentencing policy and practices. Participation in 2016 included: County Chief Adult Probation and Parole Officers Association of PA, County Adult Probation Evidence-Based Practice Leadership Team County Commissioners Association of PA, County Criminal Justice Data Quality Project County Commissioners Association of PA, Criminal Justice Unified Case Management Steering Committee Justice Reinvestment Initiative Phase II, Work Group Legislative Service Agency Directors National Association of Sentencing Commissions Executive Committee (staff member is secretary) PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency (executive director is commission member) PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice Advisory Committee PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice Population Projections Committee (executive director is chair) PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Mental Health and Justice Advisory Committee PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Research, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis Advisory Committee (executive director is chair) PA Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, DUI Treament Compliance Oversight Committee PA Justice Network, Executive Council PA Justice Network, Steering Committee PA Justice Network, Agency Advisory Subcommittee (executive director is chair) The Pennsylvania State University, Internal Advisory Board, Translational Center for Child Maltreatment Studies The Pennsylvania State University, Justice Center for Research Advisory Board University of Minnesota Law School, Robina Institute, Parole Release and Revocation Project Commonwealth Media Services Annual Report

26 Supporting Decision Makers The following are examples of how the Commission supported policy and decision makers during the year. Testimony The executive director provided testimony as follows: Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice: Informational Hearing on Criminal Justice Trends. April 11, 2016, Harrisburg, PA. Legislative Reports The Commission submitted the following report: Pennsylvania s State Intermediate Program, Report to the Legislature, July Data and Information Pennsylvania sentencing data are used in scholarly research which aids evidence-based practices and in governmental policy development, administration, and evaluation. The Commission s sentencing data are also used in reporting, analyses, and criminal justice population projections. Some data requests require extensive and complex analyses while others are characterized by a very quick turnaround time from request to response. In 2016, 12 researchers or research entities requested 56 sentencing data sets. Requests originated from the Council of State Governments, Robina Institute, PA State Data Center, Pro Publica, Levin College of Law, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, and Indiana University of Pennsylvania. The Commission responded to 66 requests for sentencing information or reports, of which 35% were for the General Assembly, 39% were for other state and county government agencies. The remaining 26% were from researchers, the media, private attorneys, associations, and others. Data requests included, but were not limited to: Sentences imposed and lengths of sentences used in analyses of House Bills 148, 185, 853, 1353, 1496, 1497, 1799, 1861, 1948 and 2266, and Senate Bills 683, 1062, and Sentencing trends for the Criminal Justice Population and Projections Committee. Online Data Reports The Commission s online sentencing reports website was launched in Nearly 1,000 visitors were reported in Of those visitors, 76% were new to the website. Given that the website enables users to obtain information on their own, Commission staff can focus on more complex requests for information that cannot be obtained through the website. Criminal justice policy makers, practitioners, and the public may generate dynamic reports online based on aggregate sentencing data (see page 33). Access is through the Commission s web site. Impact of Proposed Legislation Given the impact sentencing policies and practices have on other segments of the criminal justice system, budgets, and capacity, the Commission actively works with other agencies on criminal justice population projections and impact analyses. It serves as a member of the Criminal Justice Population Projections Committee along with the Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole, Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and the Governor s Budget and Policy Offices. This Committee is charged with developing annual population projections based on changes in programs, policies, practices, and other nuances in the criminal justice system in order to plan for the future. Additionally, the Commission consults with legislative offices, executive branch agencies, the judiciary, and other groups to develop public policy. More formally, the Commission analyzes the impact of legislative proposals in a proactive effort to assist in the creation of solid policy. Through reviews of current and past sentencing data, forecasts are created as to the impact on the criminal justice system of not only new laws, but also changes or proposed changes in policy and practice. Additionally, a sentencing simulation module is used to project the impact on sentences from changes in sentencing guidelines or statutes. It includes types and numbers of sentences as well as sentence length. 18 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

27 Legislation Enacted A number of Senate and House bills were enacted that either established penalities for new offense categories or revised penalties for existing ones. (See Appendix A). Included were these new 2016 laws: Act New offenses related to medical marijuana. Act Modified language in 75 Pa.C.S. 3806, DUI prior offense. Act New offense under 18 Pa.C.S. 2718, strangulation. Act Modification of violation of Uniform Firearm Act 18 Pa.C.S. 6105, persons not to possess. Sentencing enhancement mandated. Act Modification of 18 Pa.C.S. 3502, burglary, creating new offense of burglary of home/ person present and commits/attempts/threatens bodily injury crime. Sentencing enhancement required under 42 Pa.C.S Act Modified definition of 75 Pa.C.S. 3732, homicide by vehicle, and aggravated assault by vehicle, to include sentencing ehancements related to text-based communication. Additional five year and two year maximum penalties are applicable. Relevant Case Law Pennsylvania s appellate courts (Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court) issued opinions during 2016 relevant to sentencing and the sentencing guidelines. Below are listed a number of those cases and the important sentence-related aspects addressed in the decisions. More detailed extracts from these opinions are found in Appendix B. Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, 133 A.3d 14 (1/21/2016, PA Super) RRRI Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (2/5/2016, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 134 A.3d 1066 (2/6/2016, PA Super) Probation Tate v. DOC, 133 A.3d 350 (2/8/2016, PA Cmwlth) Fines/Costs, PCRA Commonwealth v. Secreti, 134 A.3d 77 (2/9/2016, PA Super) Juvenile offenders, PCRA Commonwealth v. Strasser, 134 A.3d 1062 (2/16/2016, PA Super) Guidelines Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 134 A.3d 1066 (2/16/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA, Probation Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (2/17/2016, PA Super) Re-sentencing Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (2/18/2016, PA Super) PSI, RRRI Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592 (2/23/2016, PA Super) Appeal, Concurrent/Consecutive, Enhancement, Guidelines, Juvenile offenders Commonwealth v. Woodruff, 135 A.3d 1045 (2/23/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA, Probation Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 135 A.3d 1097 (2/29/2016, PA Super) Juvenile offenders Morgalo v. Gorniak (SCI Albion Accountant), 134 A.3d 1139 (3/8/2016, PA Cmwlth) Fines/Costs, Probation Commonwealth v. Briton, 134 A.3d 83 (3/10/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Farabaugh, 136 A.3d 995 (3/11/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA, Plea Commonwealth v. Kelley, 136 A.3d 1007 (3/15/2016, PA Super) Correction of error Commonwealth v. Finley, 135 A.3d 196 (4/5/2016, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Evans, 138 A.3d 28 (4/26/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34 (4/28/2016, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Hill, 140 A.3d 713 (5/31/2016, PA Super) Merger Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (6/15/2016, PA Super) Juvenile offenders Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394 (6/29/2016, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Jackson, 143 A.3d 468 (7/7/2016, PA Cmwlth) Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Duffy, 143 A.3d 940 (7/15/2016, PA Super) Modification, Re-sentencing Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (7/19/2016, PA) Appeal, Jury Trial Commonwealth v. Langley, 145 A.3d 757 (8/12/2016, PA Super) Mandatory, Jury Trial Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d 891 (8/15/2016, PA) Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Martinez, 147 A.3d 517 (8/24/2016, PA) Megan s Law/SORNA, Plea Commonwealth v. Green, 149 A.3d 43 (9/16/2016, PA Super) Merger Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (9/28/2016, PA) Post-trial Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (10/3/2016, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA, PCRA Commonwealth v. Griffin, 149 A.3d 349 (10/18/2016, PA Super) Enhancement Annual Report

28 Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867 (10/24/2016, PA Super) Modification, State Intermediate Punishment Commonwealth v. Blango, 150 A.3d 45 (10/31/2016, PA Super) Plea Commonwealth v. Kearns, 150 A.3d 79 (11/7/2016, PA Super) Guidelines Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70 (11/7/2016, PA Super) Guidelines Commonwealth v. Derby, 150 A.3d 987 (11/15/2016, PA Super) Re-sentencing Commonwealth v. Serrano, 150 A.3d 470 (11/15/2016, PA Super) Re-sentencing Commonwealth v. Derby, 150 A.3d 987 (11/15/2016, PA Super) Revocation, Revocation Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (11/18/2016, PA Super) Juvenile offenders, Modification Commonwealth v. Solomon, 151 A.3d 672 (11/22/2016, PA Super) Appeal, Guidelines Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621 (11/23/2016, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (11/28/2016, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Tooks, 151 A.3d 666 (11/29/2016, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088 (12/6/2016, PA Super) County Intermediate Punishment, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Parker, 152 A.3d 309 (12/12/2016, PA Super) Probation Commonwealth v. Ciccone, 152 A.3d 1004 (12/13/2016, PA Super) Appeal, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Blakney, 152 A.3d 1053 (12/16/2016, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414 (12/19/2016, PA Super) Guidelines Commonwealth v. Ritz, 153 A.3d 336 (12/21/2016, PA Super) Plea Commonwealth v. Furness, 153 A.3d 397 (12/22/2016, PA Super) Guidelines Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (12/28/2016, PA) Appeal, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Martinez, 153 A.3d 1025 (12/29/2016, PA Super) --Merger Research The Commission was involved in three research projects during Two of the on-going projects, evaluations of the State Intermediate Punishment Program and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program, are legislatively mandated studies. The third project, Risk Assessment Project, was initiated as a result of a legislative mandate to the Commission to develop a risk assessment instrument to be used at sentencing. These projects were conducted in conjunction with a research partnership that the Commission has with the Department of Sociology and Criminology at The Pennsylvania State University. The following section provides a brief summary of each research project. For Research Bulletins and full reports on these projects, please visit the Commission s web site: State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) Project In 2004 the Legislature established the SIP program, effective May 2005, to provide a two year, step-down, substance-abuse program for offenders as an alternative to state prison. The SIP program was viewed as a way to both enhance public safety and reduce recidivism by punishing offenders for the harm they have brought to their victims, while at the same time offering treatment as a mechanism for offenders to address their substance abuse issues. Act 112 of 2004, which created the SIP program, mandates the Sentencing Commission to provide the Judiciary Committees with a report in even-numbered years, with the Department of Corrections providing the report in odd-numbered years. The Commission s next report will be published in Major findings from the Commission s 2016 legislative report on Pennsylvania s State Intermediate Program includes: Judges in 63 of Pennsylvania s 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program. The majority of offenders approved for SIP were male, white, and had an average age of 34 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses, and a large percentage of the offenders had been previously arrested for a drug or property offense. Offenders were more likely to complete SIP if they were: older, female, white, convicted of a drug delivery or DUI offense, had fewer property arrests, had a prior DUI offense, and had a low score on the criminal attitudes assessment scale (CSS-M). After three years, 36% of the SIP completers recidivated, compared to 66% of those who were expelled and 54% of those who were eligible for SIP but sentenced to prison instead. When controlling for other factors, offenders who completed SIP were significantly less likely to recidivate than offenders sentenced to prison, and offenders 20 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

29 who were expelled from SIP were significantly more likely to recidivate than those who completed SIP or those who went to prison. Offenders were also more likely to recidivate if they had been convicted of a property offense (compared to a drug delivery or DUI offense), had a greater number of prior arrests, had a prior drug offense, were male, and were younger. Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program Project The Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program is a program designed to enhance public safety by providing eligible non-violent offenders the opportunity to participate in programs intended to reduce recidivism. Those offenders who successfully complete the program are eligible for early parole. The RRRI program, which became effective on November 24, 2008, was part of a broader correctional reform package (Act 81 of 2008). The legislation s stated purpose for RRRI was to create a program that ensures appropriate punishment for persons who commit crimes, encourages prisoner participation in evidencebased programs that reduce the risks of future crime, and ensures the openness and accountability of the criminal justice process while ensuring fairness to crime victims (61 Pa. C.S.A. 4502). The Commission and the Department of Corrections alternate years that they provide legislative reports. In 2010, Act 95 of 2010 changed the reporting requirements so the Department of Corrections provides reports in even number years, and the Commission provides reports in odd numbered years. The next report will be released in Risk Assessment Project Act 95 of 2010 mandated the Commission to develop a risk assessment instrument to assist the court at sentencing. In an effort to learn more about what risk factors best predict recidivism for certain types of offenders, the Commission undertook the Risk Assessment Project. The project proceeded through several phases of development. Interim reports are publicly available on the Commission s web site that document and explain the Commission s findings and policy decisions along the way. The Commission released nine reports on the first phase of the Risk Assessment Project and three reports in the second phase: Phase 1 Interim Report 1. Review of Risk Assessment Instruments (2011). Interim Report 2. Initial Recidivism Information (2011). Interim Report 3. Factors that Predict Recidivism for Various Types of Offenders (2011). Interim Report 4. Development of Risk Assessment Scale (revised) (2012). Interim Report 5. Developing Categories of Risk (2012). Interim Report 6. Impact of Risk Assessment Tool for Low Risk Offenders (2012). Interim Report 7. Validation of the Risk Assessment Tool for Low Risk Offenders (2013). Interim Report 8. Communicating Risk at Sentencing (2014). Special Report. The Impact of Juvenile Record on Recidivism Risk (2014). Phase 2 Interim Report 1. Development of a Risk Assessment Scale by Offense Gravity Score for All Offenders (2015). Interim Report 2. Validation of Risk Assessment Instrument by OGS for all Offenses (2016). Special Report. Impact of Removing Demographic Factors (2015). Along the way, the Commission worked with four pilot counties: Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland. Feedback was gathered on what information to present to the court and court practitioners and the best way to present that information. Additionally, staff members met with court practitioners from those counties throughout the year to learn more about each county s sentencing processes and how risk can be integrated. The current Sentence Risk Assessment Instrument is a second generation actuarial risk tool that the Commission developed through empirical research. It relies upon static criminal justice and demographic factors that focus on the risk of arrest for any offense and the risk of arrest for an offense against a person within three years of release from incarceration or imposition of community supervision. Data are drawn from current and previously submitted sentencing information to the Commission and from information from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). They include Pennsylvania arrests obtained from the AOPC. The Commission is reanalyzing these data to remove any arrests dismissed by a minor court. The current drafted Instrument includes 18 different risk scales based on the offense gravity score of the current offense and the type of recidivism event being predicted (whether for any re-offense or only for a re-offense for a crime against a person). Only those factors determined to be statistically significant in relation to risk of reoffense for a specific offense category are included in the corresponding risk scale. The following factors are considered: Annual Report

30 Age Gender Number of OTNs bound over for trial or resulting in conviction by a minor court Offense types for prior arrests Offense type for current conviction Multiple offenses in judicial proceeding Prior record score* Prior juvenile adjudications* *available on current sentencing guidelines form In order to provide information on the relative risk that an offender will reoffend, the risk scores of all offenders in each scale are compared. Only those scores outside the middle 68% (typical risk) are identified for a recommendation to obtain additional information. The Commission recommends, but does not require, the court to seek additional information in the form of a pre-sentence investigation report or fuller risk-needs assessment. Additional information may assist the court in determining an appropriate and individualized sentence, including the suitability of various sentencing alternatives and programs and the duration and intensity of supervision. The Instrument is not intended to be used by the court as an aggravating or mitigating factor nor does it make any recommendations regarding the sentence to be imposed. As next steps, based on feedback from the public and practitioners, the Commission will compare the predictive accuracy of (1) an instrument that only includes prior arrests that were not dismissed by a minor court and (2) an instrument that only includes prior convictions (and thus excludes any arrest not leading to a conviction). The initial Instrument does not include DUI offenders. Separate analysis is underway for that category of offenses. The Commission will also undertake a racial impact analysis. Responding to Initiatives: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Each year the Commission identifies one issue to examine in detail as part of the Annual Report, providing an opportunity to explore the intersection of legislation, policy, research, and practice. In light of recent court rulings that invalidated many of Pennsylvania s mandatory minimum sentencing statutes and legislation under consideration to reinstate a modified version of them, the Commission delves into the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing. Introduction This is not the Commission on Sentencing s first foray into the world of mandatory minimum sentencing. In response to House Resolution 613 of 2004, the Commission issued a Preliminary Investigation Report on Mandatory Sentencing. As directed in House Resolution 12 of 2007, the Commission undertook an in depth study and issued a report on the Use and Impact of Mandatory Sentencing and made several recommendations and suggestions to the General Assembly, the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, and for future research and actions. The work is summarized in the Commission s 2009 Annual Report. Both studies and the Annual Report are available on the Commission s website (URL: Further exploration into the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing is in accordance with the Commission s governance statute. Two of the Commission s mandates are to: Make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning modification or enactment of sentencing, parole and correctional statutes which the commission finds to be necessary and advisable to carry out an effective, humane and rational sentencing, resentencing and parole policy (42 Pa.C.S.A. 2153(a)(12)). Establish a program to systematically monitor compliance with the guidelines with the risk assessment instrument, recommitment ranges and with mandatory sentencing laws (42 Pa.C.S.A. 2153(a)(14)). Sentencing in Pennsylvania Sentencing has a number of purposes. At its foundation, it provides for retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution. Punishment should bear a rational relationship to the type of crime committed. It may deter future crimes for certain types of offenses, and it may prevent future crime by the actual removal of an offender from society. Programming targeted to specific behaviors of an offender may reduce the potential of recidivism. Economic sanctions may punish the offender and also help restore the victim to precrime status. 22 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

31 The Court has the following sentencing options at its disposal (42 Pa.C.S.A. 9721(a)) that may be imposed concurrently or consecutively (see Appendix C): Guilt without further penalty Economic sanctions (fines, restitution) Probation County intermediate punishment State intermediate punishment Partial or total confinement For any of those options, Pennsylvania s Sentencing Code (42 Pa.C.S. 9721(b)) requires criminal courts to follow the general principle that the use of confinement be consistent with: the protection of the public; the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community; and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Therefore, each sentence is individualized as the court takes into account the nature of the offense and risks and needs of the offender. A Common Pleas Court must consider sentencing guidelines in every case in which it imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor. The reasons for the sentence imposed must be placed on the record in open court at sentencing; if sentencing outside the sentencing guidelines, the court must provide a reason for the deviation (42 Pa.C.S.A. 9721(b)). Pennsylvania s Sentencing Guidelines The Commission s mandate is to create and maintain a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy. Since the Commission s establishment in 1978 and the implementation of the first sentencing guidelines in 1982, the General Assembly and the Commission have worked to advance policies that promote the protection of the public, the restoration of victims, and the rehabilitation of offenders. This work involves reconciling the often competing goals of uniform sentences that promote proportionality and sufficiency with individualized sentences that consider the characteristics of the offense and the offender. The Commission s work also involves consideration of sometimes competing sentencing purposes: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The sentencing guidelines are effective in establishing a statewide framework for sentencing. They provide a common starting point for sentencing, with recommendations taking into account the seriousness of the conviction offense and the offender s criminal history, as well as other factors determined by the court. The guidelines also provide a mechanism for the collection of statewide sentencing data and the analysis of sentencing practices, including conformity to the guidelines and the use of mandatory minimum sentences. Thus, the sentencing guidelines promote certainty, proportionality, and transparency. The recommendations contained in the guidelines provide judges with substantial discretion regarding disposition and duration of sentences, particularly for less serious offenders. As noted, courts are required to consider the guidelines. The Commonwealth or the defendant may file an appeal based on an erroneous preparation of the guidelines, a departure from the guidelines, or other discretionary aspects of a sentence. However, the standard of review for departures, manifest abuse of discretion, is relatively weak since the guidelines are advisory guideposts that are valuable, may provide an essential starting point, and that must be respected and considered; they recommend, however, rather than require a particular sentence. Courts overwhelmingly sentence within the sentencing guideline ranges. The guidelines provide recommended ranges for the minimum sentence based on offense gravity score and offender prior record score. In addition, the guidelines provide for mitigated and aggravated ranges. In 2016, 75% of sentences conformed to the standard range and 6% were in the aggravated and 8% were within the mitigated ranges. Certain categories of offenses have more departures below the guidelines; the most common reasons reported for those departures include guilty pleas, recommendation of the prosecutor, and sentences on multiple counts. Even with weak appellate review, Pennsylvania enjoys relatively high compliance (90%) with the guidelines. The Courts appreciate the wide ranges of the guidelines which allow discretion and more individualized sentencing. Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Pennsylvania The creation of the Commission on Sentencing and sentencing guidelines may be attributed to the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing legislation in This bill would have required the imposition of a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for second convictions for serious felonies. The projected impact if enacted was an increase in the state prison population of 3,100 inmates at a time when the prison population was 7,700. As detailed in the book Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania, Professors John Kramer (the Commission s first Executive Director) and Jeff Ulmer traced the impetus for establishment of the Commission on Sentencing to this bill and two other bills introduced during that session that sought to enact mandatory sentencing provisions. Sentencing guidelines were viewed as a compromise between retaining the unfettered sentencing discretion of judges and enacting restrictive mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Of particular concern were sentences viewed as excessively lenient for serious violent offenses. Pennsylvania statutes reflect two types of mandatory sentences. The first type are no notice mandatories. These mandatory minimum sentences are based on elements of the crimes proven at trial by proof beyond Annual Report

32 a reasonable doubt. Upon conviction, imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence is automatically required. The second type of mandatory minimum statutes require prosecutorial notice prior to sentencing. These notice mandatories are based on determination by the court of additional factors at sentencing and based on a preponderance of evidence. If the prosecutor does not give notice to sentence under the mandatory, the judge is not bound to impose the mandatory minimum sentence. As will be discussed, the no notice mandatory minimum sentencing statutes survived judicial review. Many of the notice statutes were invalidated as the offending provisions were found to be non-severable. A number of Pennsylvania s mandatory minimum statutes give the prosecutor discretion in the application of a mandatory sentence (see Appendix D). In the 2007 House Resolution 12 report, Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences, the Commission found that less than half of all mandatory-eligible offenses studied received a mandatory sentence, but that the use varied substantially depending on the nature of the offense. Mandatory sentences were imposed in 77% of eligible firearms cases, 43% of eligible drug cases, and 26% of eligible repeat violent offender cases. While most agree that some exercise of discretion is required, there is less agreement as to the amount of discretion that should be available, how transparent that exercise of discretion should be, and whether that discretion should be exercised by the prosecutor or the sentencing judge. Mandatory minimum sentences provide a certainty of punishment when sought; they define a minimum term the court is required to impose on a defendant. While the uneven application or selective use of mandatories may undermine the purpose of certainty, the successful prosecution and subsequent incarceration may help to achieve the purposes of retribution and incapacitation. There are concerns about the unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences beyond limiting the discretion of the sentencing judge. There may be an impact on the costs of corrections due to longer sentences and increases in the correctional population. The Court may sentence an offender to more than the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. However, with a few exceptions for flat sentences, etc., the maximum sentence must fall within statutory limits (18 Pa.C.S.A and 1104) (see Appendix E). Additionally, in Pennsylvania, the maximum sentence of incarceration must be at least twice the minimum sentence (42 Pa.C.S. 9755(b) and 9756(b)). Offenders are eligible for parole consideration upon reaching their minimum sentences. Other sentencing options and programs that may be less costly and/or more effective in rehabilitation of the offender may be unavailable for consideration by the Court. Evolution of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes in Pennsylvania Mandatory minimums are established by the Legislature. They are statutory provisions that may not be superseded by the sentencing guidelines. A mandatory minimum sentence requires a judge to impose at least the statutorily mandated minimum sentence for specific offenses for which an offender is convicted. If the sentencing guidelines recommend a minimum sentence greater than that required by mandatory minimum sentencing statute, the court shall consider the guideline sentence recommendation. In 1982, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed mandatory minimum sentencing statutes for certain violent offenders and for offenders convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). These included: Sentences for offenses committed with firearms (42 Pa. C.S. 9712) Sentences for offenses committed on public transportation (42 Pa. C.S. 9713) Sentences for second or subsequent offenses (42 Pa. C.S. 9714) Life imprisonment for homicide (previously convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter) (42 Pa. C.S. 9715) Sentences for offenses against elderly persons (42 Pa. C.S. 9717) Sentences for offenses against infant persons (42 Pa. C.S. 9718) Driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked, DUI-related (75 Pa. C.S. 1543(b)) Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance (75 Pa. C.S. 3731, 3802) Homicide by vehicle while DUI (75 Pa. C.S. 3735) In 1984 and 1985, mandatory minimum sentencing statutes were enacted regarding the prohibition of certain bullets (18 Pa. C.S. 6121) and the manufacture of amphetamines, etc. (35 P.S (k)). Additional mandatory statutes were enacted in 1988 to fill a void following the Sessoms decision (532 A.2d 775 (Pa, 1987)) by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which invalidated all the sentencing guidelines due to a procedural error in These statutes included drug delivery offenses, with the length of the minimum sentence dependent upon the type and quantity of drug involved (18 Pa. C.S. 7508), as well trafficking drugs to minors (18 Pa. C.S. 6314(a) (b)). Legislation was enacted imposing mandatory 24 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

33 sentences for offenses committed while impersonating a law enforcement officer (42 Pa. C.S. 9719). found the offending provisions to be non-severable. Therefore, these statutes were invalidated. During the 1995 Special Session on Crime, the General Assembly passed Pennsylvania s version of Three Strikes which increased mandatory sentences for repeat violent offenders (42 Pa. C.S. 9714). Since then, the General Assembly enacted numerous mandatory minimum sentencing statutes: Controlled substance contraband to confined person (18 Pa. C.S. 5123(a.1)) Sale or transfer of firearms; subsequent violation (18 Pa. C.S. 6111(h)) Accidents involving death or personal injury; leaving scene of accident (75 Pa. C.S. 3742) Drug free school zones (18 Pa. C.S. 6317) First and second degree murder of an unborn child (18 Pa. C.S. 1102(a)(b)) Assault by life prisoner (18 Pa. C.S. 2704) Weapons of mass destruction and use resulted in death of an individual (18 Pa. C.S. 2716(b)(1)) Illegally operating motor vehicle not equipped with ignition lock (75 Pa. C.S. 3808) Certain drug offenses committed with firearms (42 Pa. C.S ) Sentences for sexual offenders (42 Pa. C.S ) Operating watercraft under influence of alcohol or controlled substance (30 Pa. C.S. 5502) Murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree (18 Pa. C.S. 1102(a)) Murder of a law enforcement officer of the second degree (18 Pa. C.S. 1102(b)) Assault of law enforcement officer in the first degree (discharging firearm) (42 Pa. C.S ) Sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders (42 Pa. C.S ) Homicide by watercraft while operating under the influence (30 Pa. C.S ) Sentence for persons under age 18 for murder, murder of unborn child, murder of law enforcement officer (18 Pa. C.S ) Violation involving minor occupant (75 Pa. C.S. 3804(c.1)) As noted previously, Pennsylvania statutes include both no notice mandatories (automatically applicable upon conviction) and notice mandatories (require prosecutorial notice prior to sentencing). These provisions gave rise to a number of court cases. The tide shifted with the U.S. Supreme Court 2013 case of Alleyne v. United States (570 U.S. (2013)). It held that any fact that triggers any mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the crime and must be proven to a jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Alleyne holding is an extension of the Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466 (2000)) decision which ruled that any fact that increases the statutory maximum to which a defendant is exposed is an element of the crime and must be presented to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on this case, presumptive sentencing guidelines in determinate sentencing systems are treated as statutory maxima and require proof at trial (beyond a reasonable doubt) of factors used to exceed the guidelines. A number of decisions by the Pennsylvania Supreme and Superior Courts applying Alleyne impacted mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Unconstitutional provisions in Drug Free School Zones (18 Pa. C.S. 6317) cannot be severed. Commonwealth v. Bizzel 107 A.3d 102 (Pa. Super. 2014). Sentencing practice under Certain Drug Offenses Committed with Firearms (42 Pa.C.S ) is unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Newman 101 A.3d 801 (PA Super 2014). The entirety of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute for Sentences for Offenses Committed on Public Transportation (42 Pa.C.S. 9713) must be stricken as unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Valentine 101 A.3d 801 (PA. Super 2014). Sentences for Offenses Against Infant Persons (42 Pa. C.S. 9718) is indistinguishable from the statutes struck down in Newman and Valentine and the Court is constrained to conclude that Section 9718 is also facially void. Commonwealth v. Wolfe 106 A.3d 800 (Pa Super. 2014). (Affirmed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 20, 2016.) Drug Trafficking (18 Pa.C.S. 7508) was deemed unconstitutional in its entirety. Commonwealth v. Vargos 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014). Current State of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes in Pennsylvania Many, but not all, of the Commonwealth s notice mandatory minimum sentencing statutes were invalidated in the last few years. As discussed, in the instance of notice mandatories, the sentencing judge makes a determination of additional factors at sentencing based on a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the required standard of proof is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Appellate Courts The trial court lacks authority to allow the jury to determine factual predicates of Sentences for Offenses Committed with Firearms and Sentences for Offenses Committed on Public Transportation (42 Pa.C.S and 9713). Commonwealth v. Ferguson 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super 2015). Annual Report

34 The trial court exceeded its authority by permitting the jury, via a special verdict slip, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt the factual predicate of Drug Trafficking (18 Pa.C.S. 7508). Commonwealth v. Mosley 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2015). Certain mandatory minimum sentencing provisions are unconstitutional and the violative provisions are not severable. Commonwealth v. Hopkins 117 A.3d 192 (Pa. 2015). Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes Historically, mandatory minimum sentences have an impact upon state incarceration sentences. While mandatory minimum statutes address the minimum incarceration sentence, place of confinement is based upon the maximum sentence. The length of the maximum sentence is at least twice the minimum sentence. Thus, any mandatory minimum of one year or greater typically results in a sentence to state prison. Well over 90% of reported sentences involving mandatory minimum sentences are sentences of state incarceration. The impact of the aforementioned decisions on the invalidated mandatory minimum sentencing statutes was realized during the past few years. The actual number of admissions to state prison and duration of sentences declined for sentences otherwise subject to invalidated drug-related mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. Sentences for violent offenses remain relatively constant, notwithstanding the invalidation of mandatory minimum sentencing. The numbers of reported sentences under these statutes are much smaller. Overall, mandatory minimum sentences reported to the Commission decreased by more than 75%, from a total of 1,171 in 2013 to 274 in Specifically, from 2013 to 2016, reported mandatory sentences for: drug trafficking decreased from 334 to 8; drug delivery in a drug-free school zone decreased from 199 to 2; offenses committed with a firearm decreased 23 to 0; and crimes against infant persons decreased from 93 to 9. With the invalidation of certain mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, courts are no longer mandated to impose those mandatory minimums. The overall decrease in average state sentence length may be partially attributed to this change. In 2016, the average state incarceration minimum sentence was 28.5 months and the average maximum was 67.4 months. Both the average minimum and maximum sentences represent a decline from 2013 (30.4 to 70.8 months). The mandatory minimum sentences for the invalidated statutes vary. For instance, the mandatory minimum sentence for violent offenses such as rape of a child younger than age 16 was 10 years. Drug free school zones required a mandatory minimum of two years. 400 Number of Reported Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Pennsylvania, Crimes Against Elderly Crimes Against Infants Drug Delivery Firearm Drug Trafficking Drugs to Minors Drugs/School Zone Offenses Committed with Firearms Repeat Offender Sex Offenses Part I: The Commission and Its Work

35 Average Minimum Sentence for Reported Mandatory Minimum Sentences (in months): Pennsylvana, 2013 Drugs/School Zone (N=199) Drugs to Minors (N=10) Drug Trafficking (N=334) Drug Delivery Firearm (N=23) Repeat Offender (N=34) Public Transportation (N=2) Offenses Committed with Firearms (N=171) Crimes Against Infants (N=93) Drug trafficking mandatories varied depending upon the type of drug and amount of the drug. These minimum sentences could range from 1 year for a first conviction of 2 to less than 10 grams of cocaine to 8 years for a subsequent conviction of 100 grams or more of methamphetamine. Prior to the onset of the invalidation of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, reported minimum sentences for drug offenses ranged from 22 months to 60.8 months. While the number of sentences reported for violent offenses is smaller, the sentence lengths are longer (ranging from 60 to 95.8 months). With the invalidation of the drug trafficking mandatory, Courts may impose sentences less than the previously mandated minimum sentence. However, Courts must still consider the sentencing guidelines. In general, reported sentences of state incarceration for convictions of felony drug offenses decreased from an average of 26.7 months minimum to 61.2 months maximum in 2013 to 21.1 months minimum to 53.9 months maximum in The actual total number of reported sentences for felony drug offenses decreased from 2013 to 2016 as well. There was a 21% reduction during this period (10,218 to 8,119 sentences). There was a larger decrease in those sentenced to state incarceration for those offenses, 39% (3,624 to 2,212 sentences). Moving Forward As an alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the General Assembly created mandates for the Commission on Sentencing to develop sentencing enhancements for specific offenses and circumstances. Since 2010, the Commission has added 10 sentencing enhancements to the guidelines to increase sentence recommendations and to serve as alternatives to mandatory minimum Average Reported Sentences of State Incarceration for Felony Drug Offenses (in months): Pennsylvania, Maximum Minimum Annual Report

36 sentences (see Appendix F). The Commission addresses enhancements through the increase in offense gravity score or through adding months to the lower and upper limits of the standard range. In 2017, the General Assembly introduced legislation to reestablish most of the invalidated notice (prosecutor discretion) mandatories in Pennsylvania. Legislation includes procedures by which the sentencing factors are treated as elements of the crime, requiring notice and proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Reinstating drug trafficking and school zone mandatories have the potential to reverse recent trends of decreased admissions to the Department of Corrections and the duration of sentences for mandatory-eligible drug offenders. Presumptive guidelines serve a similar purpose. In jurisdictions with presumptive sentencing guidelines, such as Minnesota and Washington, a court may impose a sentence outside the standard range of the guidelines only if it finds substantial and compelling reasons, with the departure sentence subject to a de novo standard of review by the appellate court. Thus, as another option and an alternative to mandatory minimums, the Commonwealth could consider creating a two-tiered guidelines system with most offenses subject to the advisory guidelines currently in place, but with select offenses subject to presumptively binding guidelines recommendations which would carry tighter enforcement and review. This heightened review would increase certainty at sentencing while providing a formal and public mechanism for the consideration of exceptional circumstances. Summary Over the decades, Pennsylvania enacted mandatory minimum sentencing statutes to ensure that convictions for certain crimes would result in a sentence of incarceration for at least the time specified in law. Some mandatories gave discretion to the prosecutor; notice that a prosecutor was seeking a mandatory minimum sentence was required prior to sentencing. This process tempers the certainty of the intent of mandatory minimum sentences. As correctional populations grew and were impacted by lengthy mandatory minimum sentences, the General Assembly turned to sentencing enhancements as an alternative to mandatory minimum sentencing. As a result the Commission revised and adopted guidelines at a more frequent interval than in the past. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and Pennsylvania Supreme and Superior Courts invalidated many mandatory minimum sentencing statutes that require prosecutorial notice. In 2013, Alleyne v United States held that any fact that triggers any mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the crime and must be proven to a jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In 2014 and 2015, numerous Pennsylvania rulings deemed that the violative provisions were not severable and invalidated entire mandatory minimum statutes. Advocates of mandatory minimum sentencing legislation appropriately identify sufficiency and certainty as important sentencing components. The sufficiency of the guideline recommendations are regularly reviewed, and adjustments continue to be made to address concerns and to promote uniformity and proportionality. Both the sentencing guidelines and the prosecutor discretion mandatories include uncertainty. The uncertainty of the advisory guidelines relates to departures without substantive review of the reasons; the uncertainty of the mandatories relate to the lack of transparency in the exercise of discretion by the prosecutor. It leaves the Commonwealth with options for consideration. The General Assembly can review invalidated mandatory minimum statutes and reestablish all or some with provisions acceptable under court rulings. This path will impact correctional populations and resources. Lawmakers can rely on sentencing enhancements as an alternative which may also have a more limited impact on correctional populations and resources. The Legislature may forge new pathways into utilization of risk-needs-responsivity assessments, diverting appropriate offenders into alternatives and incarcerating those offenders that need to be removed from society. Whichever path the Legislature chooses, it is making not only decisions on how the Commonwealth utilizes its resources, but is making a statement on its underlying philosophy of sentencing. 28 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

37 PART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS Annual Report

38 PART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES Sentencing Guidelines The Commission is required by statute to adopt guidelines for sentencing within the limits established by law (42 Pa.C.S. 2154). The guidelines assign ranges for the minimum incarceration sentences for each offense. In Pennsylvania s indeterminate sentencing system, the trial judge is free to impose any maximum term up to the statutory maximum established by the Legislature for the grade of the conviction offense. For example, most first degree felonies have a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years. The guidelines for minimum sentences take into account the gravity of the current conviction offense by assigning an offense gravity score (OGS). The seriousness and extent of the offender s prior record is weighed with a prior record score (PRS). For each combination of OGS and PRS scores, the guidelines prescribe three ranges: A standard range, for use under normal circumstances; An aggravated range, for use when the judge determines that there are aggravating circumstances/factors (things that tend to increase the seriousness of the offense); and A mitigated range for use when the judge determines that there are mitigating circumstances/factors (things that tend to lessen the seriousness of the crime). When a judge sentences an offender for a felony or misdemeanor, a reason for the sentence imposed must be stated on the record. If it is within either the aggravated or mitigated range, the judge is encouraged to identify specific aggravating or mitigating reasons. However, if a sentence is imposed that is outside of the recommended guideline ranges, the judge must provide a written explanation. By law, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney can appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence. The Superior Court must vacate a sentence when the lower court: 1. failed to consider the guidelines; 2. applied the guidelines erroneously; 3. departed from the guidelines and imposed an unreasonable sentence; or 4. sentenced within the guidelines and imposed a clearly unreasonable sentence. Guideline Editions The Commission s sentencing guidelines first went into effect on July 22, 1982, and applied to all crimes committed from that date forward. They were amended in June 1983, January 1986, and June On October 7, 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated all guidelines due to a procedural error that occurred in 1981 when the Legislature rejected the Commission s initial set of guidelines. With unanimous support from the General Assembly, the guidelines were repromulgated and became effective April 25, Since then, the Commission periodically has reviewed and revised its guidelines to keep them current. Amendments to the guidelines helped identify defendants for the new county intermediate punishment program, beginning August 9, 1991; four months later, on December 20th, the guidelines were amended again for the new boot camp program. The Commission made further revisions as of August 12, 1994 and June 13, Taking into consideration new laws addressing driving under the influence (DUI), as well as a new sentencing alternative for state intermediate punishment, the Commission released new guidelines on June 3, Revisions effective December 5, 2008, incorporated legislation enacted during the previous three years and promoted greater utilization of sentencing options such as fines, community service, and intermediate punishments. The most recent sentencing guidelines were effective December 28, They incorporate legislation enacted since They were amended effective September 27, 2013 to capture legislation enacted after the adoption of the guidelines and prior to the end of the 2012/2013 legislative session. Amendment 2 (effective September 24, 2014) and Amendment 3 (effective September 25, 2015) were adopted to meet legislative mandates to create additional sentencing enhancements. Date of Offense On or After Effective Dates of Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines Applicable Guidelines 07/22/1982 1st Edition 06/03/1983 1st Edition, Amend 1 01/02/1986 1st Edition, Amend 2 06/05/1986 2nd Edition 10/07/1987 Sessoms Decision (invalidated all previous guidelines) 04/25/1988 3rd Edition 08/09/1991 3rd Edition, Revised 12/20/1991 3rd Edition, Revised Amend 1 08/12/1994 4th Edition 06/13/1997 5th Edition 06/03/2005 6th Edition 12/05/2008 6th Edition, Revised 12/28/2012 7th Edition 9/27/2013 7th Edition Amendment 1 9/26/2014 7th Edition Amendment 2 9/25/2015 7th Edition Amendment 3 30 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

39 Conformity A sentence conforms to the guidelines if it falls within the standard, aggravated or mitigated sentencing ranges. Otherwise, if it falls above the aggravated or below the mitigated ranges, the sentence is considered to be a departure above or below the guidelines. If the court determines that the guideline recommendations are inappropriate based on the facts of the case, the court may give a longer sentence (departure above) or a shorter sentence (departure below) as long as the court provides a reason on the record and reports that reason to the Commission via SGS Web. Departures can be categorized into dispositional departures and durational departures. A dispositional departure occurs when the guidelines recommend a period of incarceration. but a non-incarceration sentence is imposed. A durational departure occurs when an incarceration sentence is recommended and imposed, but the length of incarceration is either greater than or less than that recommended by the guidelines. Sentencing Alternatives When sentencing an offender, the court is limited by statute to the options below (see Appendix C): Determination of guilt without further penalty Fines Restitution Probation County intermediate punishment State intermediate punishment Partial confinement Total confinement Problem Solving Courts Problem solving courts focus on offenders who committed specific types of offenses or with specific issues. Offenders may receive rehabilitation, treatment, counseling, support, or other specialized programming. A judge strictly monitors an offender s progress. The use of problem solving courts has expanded in Pennsylvania since the first drug court opened in More than 80 problem solving courts exist. In 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court officially recognized problem solving courts, appointed a coordinator, and established an advisory committee. Act 30 of 2010 officially authorized the establishment of these courts. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) implemented an accreditation process for these courts, beginning with drug courts. It will ensure the quality of operations and use of nationally recognized best practices. Accredited courts, some of which are diversionary courts, are listed on the AOPC s website ( Enhancements An enhanced range of sentences is prescribed in specific circumstances. If the court determines the elements to be present, the court must consider the enhanced guideline sentence recommendations.(see Appendix F) Accident Involving Death/Failure to Stop A higher offense gravity score is assigned with increased sentencing recommendations. Aggravated Assault by Vehicle A higher offense gravity score is assigned if there is a DUI conviction and/ or the offense occurred in an active work zone or there was a conviction for 75 Pa.C.S or Arson A higher offense gravity score is assigned with increased sentencing recommendations if specific circumstances as identified in statute are met. Criminal Gang Increases in the guideline recommendations must be considered if an offender is convicted of either a crime of violence (42 Pa.C.S. 9714(g)) or a violation under 35 P.S (a)(30) and either offense is committed in association with a criminal gang. Deadly Weapon Statute requires that the guidelines (S)pecify a range of sentences of increased severity for defendants who possessed a deadly weapon during the commission of the current conviction offense (42 Pa. C.S. 2154(a)(3)). The enhancement provides increases in the guideline recommendations proportional to the severity of the conviction offense and differentiates between possessed and used during the commission of an offense. Homicide by Vehicle A higher offense gravity score is assigned if there is a DUI conviction and/or offense occurred in an active work zone or there was a conviction for 75 Pa.C.S or Human Trafficking Higher offense gravity scores are assigned with increased sentencing recommendations based on certain factors as identified in statute. Robbery of a Motor Vehicle A higher offense gravity score is assigned. Sexual Abuse of Children Increases in the guideline recommendations must be considered based on the number of images possessed. A higher offense gravity score is assigned based on the nature and character of the abuse depicted. Third Degree Murder of a Victim Younger Than Age 13 Increases in the guideline recommendations must be considered if the victim of third degree murder was younger than age 13 at the time of the offense. Youth/School Increases in the guideline recommendations are provided whenever an offender either distributes a controlled substance to a minor or commits certain drug offenses within specified distance of a school. This enhancement was initially developed as an alternative to mandatory sentencing provisions. Annual Report

40 Mandatory Sentences For certain offenses, the Legislature establishes the shortest sentence an offender may receive upon conviction. Mandatory minimum sentences supercede sentencing guideline recommendations. However, a sentence longer than the mandatory minimum may be imposed if the guidelines recommend a longer sentence after the extent and severity of an offender s prior record, as well as other factors, are taken into account. In such cases, the court must consider the guidelines prior to sentencing. It may depart from the recommendations by stating, for the record, the reasons for the departure. Pennsylvania statute contains two types of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, notice required and no notice required. The first requires the prosecutor to give reasonable notice to the defendant, prior to sentencing, of intent to proceed under a mandatory minimum sentencing statute. If the prosecutor does not do so, the mandatory provision does not apply. The second type does not require notice by the prosecutor and applies automatically upon conviction for an offense identified in the mandatory statute. Several appellate court opinions invalidated mandatory minimum sentencing statutes (see page 25). These include, but are not limited to: Com. v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super 2015); Com. v. Hopkins, 117A.3d 192 (Pa. 2015); Com. v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2015); Com. v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014); Com. v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801. (Pa. Super. 2014); Com. v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014). Offenses with mandatory minimum penalties, along with prosecutorial notice requirements, can be found in Appendix D. Concurrent/Consecutive Sentences The Judicial Code also provides that multiple sentencing alternatives may be ordered to be served concurrently or consecutively. Effective January 1, 1997, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim P. Rule 705 (Imposition of Sentence), for every sentence imposed, the court must state whether that sentence shall run consecutively or concurrently to any other active sentence. The Commission discourages the use of an indefinitely suspended sentence, as such a sentence is not provided for in the Sentencing Code (Com. v. Hamilton, 488 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 1985). Any other suspension of a sentence of incarceration in which conditions are placed on the defendant has been held to be the equivalent of probation (Com. v. Duffy, 681 A.2d 219 (Pa.Super. 1996)). Incarceration Sentences When imposing a sentence of partial or total confinement, statute requires the court to impose both a minimum and a maximum sentence (42 Pa.C.S. 9755, 9756). The sentencing guidelines and most mandatory sentencing provisions address only the minimum sentence. Sentencing guideline recommendations are ranges of months that the court must consider prior to imposing a minimum sentence for any offense. The court must impose a maximum sentence that is at least double the minimum sentence, but for most offenders the maximum sentence cannot exceed the period of time authorized by 18 Pa.C.S While there are exceptions, generally the longest minimum and maximum sentences are provided by statute as reflected in Appendix E. Aggregation Aggregation is the combination of minimum terms and maximum terms of consecutive sentences of total or partial incarceration. Consecutive sentences imposed are required to be aggregated with any other consecutive sentences an offender may be serving, including sentences previously imposed by different courts. A court has no authority to order that a consecutive sentence it imposes not be aggregated. The sentencing/correctional reform legislation of 2008 clarified the law of aggregation (42 Pa.C.S. 9762(f)). Any consecutive term of imprisonment (regardless of its form) must be aggregated for determining place of confinement. Aggregation impacts not only place of confinement but also paroling authority. Place of Confinement/Paroling Authority Offenders receiving an incarceration sentence with a maximum sentence of two years or more are generally confined under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections (42 Pa.C.S. 9762) unless certain criteria are met. Act 122 of 2012 restricts sentences of state incarceration for aggregate sentences composed exclusively of offenses classified as less than a misdemeanor 2 unless otherwise approved by the Secretary of Corrections (effective August 12, 2012). Maximum sentences of 2 years but less than 5 years may be served in a county facility if the facility s population is certified as less than 110% of its rated capacity. Additionally, a DUI offender subject to extended supervision by the court (five year maximum sentence for misdemeanor one) may serve the sentence in a county facility. A maximum term of confinement of less than two years means confinement in the county jail (42 Pa.C.S. 9762). Paroling authority is linked to place of confinement. 32 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

41 State Incarceration and Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program The Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program (RRRI), as created by Act 81 of 2008, establishes an alternative minimum sentence along with the regular minimum and maximum sentences. RRRI applies only to non-violent offenders sentenced to state prison who complete prescribed treatment or programs, maintain acceptable conduct, and meet other criteria. These offenders may be paroled by the PA Board of Probation and Parole at the RRRI minimum. County Incarceration and Reentry With the enactment of Act 81 of 2008, offenders incarcerated under a county sentence (maximum sentence less than two years) may only be released prior to their minimum sentence if they are made eligible for a reentry program at the time of sentencing. A reentry plan is defined as a release plan that may include drug and alcohol treatment, behavioral health treatment, job training, skills training, education, life skills or any other conditions deemed relevant by the court ( (e)). Reporting Requirements Since 1982, the Commission has collected relevant information on sentences imposed. Reporting by criminal court judges is mandated by statute (42 Pa.C.S. 2153(a)(14)). While it does not contain a verbatim account of the entire sentencing proceeding, the information collected includes: offender information and court case identification; offense of conviction; record of previous convictions; sentence recommendations, including applicable sentencing enhancements and/ or mandatory provisions; and type of disposition; and the sentence imposed, including any reasons provided. As of January 1, 2014, the state identification number must be included in the sentencing information. Per 7th Edition Amendment 3 Sentencing Guidelines, effective for sentences imposed on or after January 1, 2016, all subsequent revocations of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment and related resentences must be reported to the Commission. This information will help guide efforts to develop resentencing guidelines. Reporting Inchoate Offenses For purposes of applying the sentencing guideline recommendations, all convictions for inchoate offenses must be reported in conjunction with the offense which was attempted, conspired, or solicited. This information is necessary to be able to determine the OGS for the inchoate offense. For the most part, the inchoate offense carries the same OGS as if it had been the completed offense. The one exception to this policy is for inchoates to felony 1 offenses; they have an OGS that is one point less than the OGS for the completed offense. Overall, slightly more than three percent of the offenses reported are inchoate offenses. Of the offenses reported, three percent are conspiracies, with attempts and solicitations each totaling fewer than 1% of the total offenses reported. A few types of offenses include more inchoates than typical; burglary, drug felonies, robbery, and theft stand out in this regard. (See Table 30). Online Data Reports The Commission s online sentencing reports website was launched in 2012, with access through the Commission s website (URL: Criminal justice policy makers, practitioners, and the public may generate dynamic reports online based on aggregate sentencing data. Each report allows for the dynamic selection of year, geography (specific counties or statewide), and unit of analysis. Reports include: Type of Sentence (sentence alternative and length) by offense categories by dynamically-selected Title and Section by dynamically-selected Title and Section for drug offenses for mandatory sentences imposed (driving under the influence (DUI) and non-dui) for incarceration sentences with a maximum sentence between two and less than five years Conformity of Sentence (conformity of imposed sentence to sentencing guidelines) by offense categories Annual Report

42 Defining a Sentence for Reporting The challenge in reporting sentencing data is that there are many ways to describe sentencing activity. The way in which the sentence itself is defined and imposed can vary greatly, as can the unit of analysis that is being employed. The following section briefly describes some of the ways in which the Commission has addressed these issues. Sentences can be viewed in a number of ways. First, data are reported in the Annual Report based on sentences given during the calendar year. Second, the Commission s Annual Reports are based upon the most serious offense per criminal incident. For the most serious offense in the criminal incident, only the most serious sentence is reported. Criminal Incident A criminal incident is an offense or offenses committed by an offender on a specific date; it is also referred to as a transaction. A criminal incident may contain a single offense or multiple offenses. Judicial Proceeding A judicial proceeding is a proceeding in which all offenses for which the offender has been convicted are pending before the court for sentencing at the same time. A judicial proceeding may contain a single criminal incident or multiple criminal incidents. Most Serious Offense The most serious offense is the offense with the highest offense gravity score (OGS). The most serious offense may be within a criminal incident (based on date of offense), within a judicial proceeding (based on date of sentence), or among all offenses for an offender sentenced within a given year. Most Serious Sentence The most serious sentence is the sanction that is the most restrictive and, in cases of multiples, with the longest length (typically determined by comparing minimum sentence lengths); state incarceration sentences are assumed to be more serious than county incarceration sentences. A single offense may have multiple sanctions (e.g., county jail followed by probation). Each offense has its own most serious sentence. Furthermore, each criminal incident, each judicial proceeding, and each offender has its or his/her own most serious sentence. The most serious sentence is an important unit of analysis because it is possible for the most serious offense to not receive the most serious sentence. As mentioned, unless otherwise noted, tables in this report are based on the most serious offense in a criminal incident. This definition provides the best comparison to all prior Annual Reports, providing the capability to look at sentencing trends over time. Of course, all decisions on units of analysis for reporting have implications and can introduce apparent anomalies in results. One obvious example is the use of criminal incident for reporting sentences of state intermediate punishment (SIP). The SIP sentence applies to all offenses in a judicial proceeding. When the judicial proceeding contains several criminal incidents, the SIP sentence appears for each offense in each criminal incident. 34 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

43 Qualifiers and Disclaimers Data reflected in the following tables and graphics are those reported to the Commission as of February 28, The Commission will revise data tables incorporating any sentences for 2016 that are filed after that date through its web site ( Revisions are posted upon the public release of the data set, no sooner than one calendar year following the data set year. Steps have been taken to ensure that information submitted to the Commission is as accurate and complete as possible. As electronic data are submitted through SGS Web, each case undergoes an enhanced error check process. These error checks encourage the submission of accurate information, as well as promote sentencing practices in accordance with statute and the sentencing guidelines. Before public release of its annual sentencing data, the Commission employs both internal and external verification processes. The external process, which began with 1998 sentencing data and is now automated via SGS Web, allows judges to verify online at any time that their sentencing information was reported to the Commission accurately. Also, before the sentencing year is completed and prior to final production of an annual report, the Commission provides judges an additional opportunity to verify their data. Another resource which can be used by county SGS Web users, thanks to the assistance of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), is data produced from AOPC s Common Pleas Case Management System (CPCMS). Use of these records enable comparison of a county s data with the AOPC database to determine whether reporting shortfalls occur. Sentencing data reflect all Pennsylvania felony and misdemeanor offenses sentenced in the Common Pleas Courts during the calendar year that were reported to the Commission. Offenses committed by persons less than 18 years of age may be sentenced in criminal court if (1) the person is charged with murder or meets age and offense criteria outlined in (2)(ii) or (iii) under the definition of delinquent act pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 6302; (2) the person is transferred to criminal proceedings pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 6355; or (3) the person is 21 years of age or older when charged with the offense and no longer meets the definition of child pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S The following sentences are not required to be reported to the Commission: Philadelphia Municipal Court sentences, which include driving under the influence (DUI), as well as other misdemeanor offenses; Magisterial district judges sentences, which include some DUI and misdemeanor 3 offenses, as they are not a court of record; and Murder 1 and Murder 2 sentences (where the mandatory minimum sentence is life or death and the sentencing guidelines do not apply). The Commission does not collect or disseminate information on summary offenses, Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, disposition in lieu of trial, or probation without verdict. Though guidelines have not yet been developed, the Commission began to collect information on revocations of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment as well as subsequent resentences. This information will assist the Commission in developing resentencing guidelines. Data in this report are based on information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

44 AN OVERVIEW OF SENTENCING IN 2016 Sentences There were 142,311 offenses sentenced during 2016 and reported to the Commission. The total number of sentences reported reflects a 5% increase from the total number reported in 2015 (135,582). Table 1 (next section) illustrates the reporting formats previously described, showing the number of offenses reported for the calendar year by each county. Separate totals are presented for cases determined to be the most serious offense for a specific criminal incident, a judicial proceeding, and an individual offender. Totals typically decline in that order because a criminal incident may involve multiple offenses; a judicial proceeding may include multiple criminal incidents committed by the same offender; and an individual person may be included in multiple judicial proceedings. All subsequent tables and figures in this report use the most serious offense per criminal incident unless otherwise noted. This reporting format is most similar to previous annual reports. More than half of the 76,618 non-dui sentences (60%) reported for 2016 were non-incarceration sentences, comprising sentencing alternatives such as county intermediate punishment, probation, fines, restitution, and guilt without further penalty (Fig. A). The relative percentage of non-incarceration sentences has increased over time. For example, in 1990, county jail and non-incarceration sentences were almost equal. Sentences 100,000 Figure A. Number of Non DUI Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, State Prison SIP County Jail Non Incarceration 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Year *Based on all offenses excluding Driving Under the Influence offenses 1985 N=30, N=76,618 *State Intermediate Punishment became a sentencing alternative in May N=41, 2010=349, 2011=314, 2012=387, 2013=432, 2014= = =543 A similar trend is apparent in the 23,873 sentences for drug offenses. Non-incarceration was the most common sentencing outcome reported for drug offenses in 2016 (66%) (Fig. B) (also, Table 8, next section). State incarceration has hovered between 16% and 19% from 2000 to 2013, and was 10% in Sentences 20,000 Figure B. Number of Drug Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, State Prison SIP County Jail Non incarceration 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 Year N=11, N=23, Part II: Sentencing Analysis

45 Sentences imposed for DUI convictions (Fig. C) totaled 19,972 in 2016 (see Table 11). The number of sentences reported represents a 9% increase from 2015 (18,399). Sentences 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Figure C. Driving Under the Influence Sentences: Pennsylvania, ,000 0 Year *Does not include Driving Under the Influence Sentences from Philadelphia Municipal Court 1985 N=7, N= 19,972 Misdemeanor offenses accounted for the majority of reported sentences (Fig. D). During 2016, nearly 69% of the 142,311 reported sentences resulted from offenses graded as misdemeanors. It should be noted that M1 offenses (maximum of five years) or M2 offenses (maximum of two years) are considered felonies in many other jurisdictions. Thirty-one percent of reported sentences were felony offenses. Percent of Total 50% Figure D. Distribution of Sentences by Grade of Offense: Pennsylvania, % 30% 20% 10% <1% 5% 6% 12% 8% 18% 16% 7% 28% 0% Statutory Grade Murder F1 F2 F3 Unclassified M1 M2 M3 Unclassified *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% *Based on 142,311 sentences F DUI M Annual Report

46 Sentences are most often disposed through a negotiated plea agreement (Fig. E). During 2016, 82% of sentences were disposed in this manner. Another 14% resulted from non-negotiated plea agreements. About 2% of dispositions were the result of bench or jury trials. Figure E. Distribution of Sentences by Type of Conviction: Pennsylvania, 2016 Non Negotiated Guilty Plea, 14% *Based on 95,892 sentences reporting type of conviction *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Other, 2% Bench Trial, 1% Negotiated Guilty Plea, 82% Jury Trial, 1% 82% While 12% or 11,466 of the sentences imposed in 2016 were to incarceration in state prison, 30% or 29,091 were sentences of incarceration in county jails, and 44% or 42,881 were probation sentences (Fig. F). State intermediate punishment (SIP) sentences were imposed 1% of the time; county intermediate punishment (CIP) sentences accounted for 10% of the total or 9,252 sentences. Figure F. Distribution of Sentences by Type of Sentence: Pennsylvania, 2016 Other RS, 3% State Prison, 12% SIP, <1% Probation, 44% County Jail, 30% *Based on 96,590 sentences. Only one sanction (most serious) per offense is shown *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% CIP, 10% 38 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

47 Fig. G shows the percentage of incarceration sentences has declined from a high of 60% in 1990 to a relatively stable level of approximately 43% from 2010 to 2014 (excludes DUI offenses). In 2016, 40% of the 76,618 Percent 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 57% 60% Figure G. Percent Incarcerated Sentences: Pennsylvania, % 46% 45% non-dui sentences were incarceration. The length of minimum and maximum incarceration sentences (Figs. H and I) has been relatively stable. 43% 41% 40% 0% Year *Driving Under the Influence offenses not included Average (months) 36 Figure H. Average Length of Minimum Incarceration Sentences: Pennsylvania, State Prison 12 County Jail 0 Year *Driving Under the Influence offenses not included Average (months) 84 Figure I. Average Length of Maximum Incarceration Sentences: Pennsylvania, State Prison County Jail 0 Year *Driving Under the Influence offenses not included Annual Report

48 Offenders Demographic characteristics of offenders have remained consistent over the years. According to the sentences reported to the Commission in 2016, the majority of offenders were white, most were males, and 44% were younger than age 30. Figure J. Distribution of Sentences by Gender of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2016 Female, 23% During 2016, 77% of the offenders (based on 96,590 criminal incidents) were male (Fig. J). Seventythree percent of the offenders were white, and 26% were black (based on 96,590 criminal incidents), (Fig. K). Male, 77% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 96,590 sentences reporting gender of offender Figure K. Distribution of Sentences by Race/Ethnicity of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2016 Other 1% Black 26% Hispanic 1% White 73% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 96,590 sentences reporting race/ethnicity of offender 40 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

49 Additionally, nearly 37% of the offenders were between the ages of 21 and 29 (age at time of sentence). Another 7% fell in the 18 to 20 age group. Twenty-nine percent Percent 50% 40% 30% 20% 37% 29% of the offenders were age 30 to 39, based on 96,590 offenders. (Fig. L). Figure L. Distribution of Sentences by Age of Offender: Pennsylvania, % 7% 9% <1% 3% 0% Age 17 and Younger and Group Older 15% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 96,590 sentences reporting data sufficient to determine age of offender Conformity to Guidelines During 2016, 89% of the 96,510 sentences imposed, for which conformity could be determined, conformed to the guidelines. (The guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed for Murder 1 and Murder 2 where mandatory minimum sentence is life or death and the sentencing guidelines do not apply). Most sentences (75%) were within the standard range (Fig. M). Fourteen percent of sentences within the guidelines were in the mitigated (8%) and aggravated (6%) ranges. More than 9% of sentences departed from the guidelines: 2% departed above and 7% departed below. Figure M. Conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2016 Aggravated, 6% Above, 2% Procedural, 1% Below, 7% Mitigated, 8% Standard, 75% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 96,510 sentences for which conformity could be determined Does not include sentences for Homicide Murder 1 and Homicide Murder 2 Annual Report

50 Figure N. Conformity to the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, Percent 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Year 86% 86% 84% 89% 91% 90% 90% 89% *Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses not included Based on 96,510 sentences for which conformity could be determined Does not include sentences for Homicide Murder 1 and Homicide Murder 2 Overall, the most common reason cited for mitigated or aggravated ranges of guidelines or for departing either above or below the guidelines was plea or plea agreement. Mitigated or departures below most frequently referenced recommendations of the prosecution, offender pled guilty, and offender sentenced on other charge(s)-current. Other reasons for departures above the guidelines included recommendations of the prosecution, offender pled guilty, multiple current convictions, judicial discretion, and a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime (see Tables 2 and 3, next section). Departure rates below the guidelines were highest for serious offenses such as aggravated assault (SBI), car jacking, homicide-drug delivery, sexual offender registration violations (F), and VUFA (F) (see Table 18). Departure rates above the guidelines were highest for serious offenses such as homicide cause suicide, kidnapping, and voluntary manslaughter (see Table 18). Four counties had double-digit departure rates below the guidelines (Allegheny, Blair, Delaware, and Philadephia). No counties had double-digit departure rates above the guidelines (see Table 17). Overall, conformity to the guidelines tends to decrease with an increase in the seriousness of the offense. The conformity rate is highest for offenses with an OGS of 1 or 2 (97% each) and lowest for offenses with an OGS of 11 (54%) (see Table 20). The departure rate below the guidelines was highest for OGS 11 (40%). The departure rate above the guidelines was highest for OGS 12 (13%). County and State Intermediate Punishment Alternatives Offenders eligible for county (CIP) or state (SIP) intermediate punishment are often sentenced to county or state prison (see Tables 21 & 22). County and state intermediate punishment sentencing alternatives were utilized in a minority of cases in which the offender might have been eligible (See Table 23). In 2016, 4,362 offenders were eligible for SIP and 7% of those were sentenced to SIP; 32,981 offenders were eligible for CIP and 23% of those were sentenced to CIP (see Table 23). Economic Sanctions The use of economic sanctions (fines and restitution) and assessments (costs and fees) is common. In 2016, 39% of the sentences reported indicate fines were assessed, and 17% of sentences included restitution (see Table 26). Juvenile Offenders Under some circumstances juveniles are sentenced in adult court. Table 27 shows the types of offenses and sentences reported for offenders who were younger than age 18 at the time they committed their offenses. In 2016, 296 juvenile offenders were sentenced. (Note: age equals age at the time the offense was committed). Most offenders (59%) were age 17 at the date of offense (see Table 28). Nineteen percent of these offenders were sentenced in Philadelphia County, 12% were in Delaware County, and 7% each were in Allegheny and Dauphin counties (see Table 29). 42 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

51 PART III: DATA TABLES Annual Report

52 Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 County All Offenses Most Serious Offense by Criminal Incident Most Serious Offense by Judicial Proceeding Most Serious Offense by Person Adams 1, Allegheny 17,101 9,868 9,584 7,285 Armstrong Beaver 1,915 1,668 1,331 1,147 Bedford Berks 5,091 3,743 3,030 2,775 Blair 1,905 1,218 1, Bradford Bucks 5,312 3,901 3,657 3,185 Butler 1,796 1,474 1, Cambria 1,413 1, Cameron Carbon 1, Centre 3,787 1, Chester 4,406 2,978 2,545 2,373 Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford 1, Cumberland 2,562 2,022 1,795 1,578 Dauphin 4,299 2,668 2,627 2,038 Delaware 7,656 5,580 5,451 4,598 Elk Erie 2,957 2,269 1,940 1,791 Fayette 4,456 1,794 1,422 1,289 Forest Franklin 1,894 1,664 1,605 1,345 Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna 1,735 1,390 1,339 1,154 Lancaster 4,836 2,435 1,919 1,761 Lawrence Lebanon 1, Lehigh 3,437 2,766 2,531 2,151 Luzerne 3,580 2,713 2,112 1, Part III: Data Tables

53 Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 County All Offenses Most Serious Offense by Criminal Incident Most Serious Offense by Judicial Proceeding Most Serious Offense by Person Lycoming 2,448 1,721 1,549 1,400 McKean Mercer Mifflin Monroe 1,424 1, Montgomery 6,397 4,997 4,977 3,917 Montour Northampton 2,625 2,148 2,041 1,736 Northumberland Perry Philadelphia 10,976 5,986 5,464 4,850 Pike Potter Schuylkill 2,600 1,479 1, Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington 1,551 1,293 1,268 1,006 Wayne Westmoreland 5,723 3,839 3,150 2,592 Wyoming York 7,295 5,651 4,809 4,361 Total 142,311 96,590 87,013 73,889 See Defining a Sentence for Reporting (page 34). Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Total Number of Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, 2016 Number Less than 100 1,000 to 1,999 3,000 to 3, to 999 2,000 to 2,999 4,000 and more Annual Report

54 Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2016 Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines Number Non reason (text) 2,314 Plea (text) 1,012 Recommendation of the prosecution 759 Multiple current convictions 530 A lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime 230 Recommendation of the court staff/psi 173 Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 168 Judicial discretion (text) 161 Offender has been previously incarcerated 104 Open plea 101 No reason stated on guideline form (text) 88 Other-No reason specified 85 Recommendation of the defense attorney 72 Credit for time served (text) 60 Multiple victims 45 Commonwealth recommendation (text) 41 Possession of weapon 37 Drug/specialty court (text) 36 To deter others 24 Sentence detail provided (text) 24 Seriousness of offense (text) 21 Drug Court 20 Offender shows no remorse 19 Mental Health Court 17 Multiple offenses (text) 15 Concurrent to other offense. (text) 14 Under supervision (text) 14 Special Court Program - Other [Please specify] 13 Trial (text) 13 Repeat criminal pattern/habitual offender/career criminal 12 Offense more onerous/significant than usual 11 Offender attempted/threatened to injure victim 11 More than one reason may be reported for a single offense. The word (text) after the reason indicates the reason was summarized from free form text entered by the user. Non-reason means that the text was determined not to be a reason for departure from the guidelines. All other reasons were selected from a standard list of common reasons for departure. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. 46 Part III: Data Tables

55 Table 3. Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2016 Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines Number Plea (text) 3,498 Recommendation of the prosecution 2,286 Offender pleaded guilty/nolo contendre 2,146 Offender sentenced on other charge(s)-current 1,125 Other-No reason specified 385 Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 260 Judge's decision (text) 256 Recommendation of the court staff/psi 234 Interest of justice (text) 224 No reason stated on guideline form (text) 219 Recommendation of the defense attorney 182 To ensure long period of supervision after incarceration 129 Offender serving sentence for other crime(s)-prior 79 Guilty plea (text) 77 Other-Non-standard reasons provided (text) 76 Commonwealth recommendation (text) 73 Sentence details provided (text) 73 Offender waived a jury trial 70 Family is supportive of offender 64 Sentenced on other offense (text) 63 Offender has mental/emotional/psychological problems 58 Offender is drug dependent/needs treatment 54 Keep offender in county jail 50 Prior adult record is very old 48 Crime relatively insignificant or less onerous than usual 45 Offender shows remorse 36 Cooperation (text) 35 Old or minor prior adult record (text) 30 Offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation 30 Drug Court 28 Consecutive to other offense (text) 27 Mental health issues (text) 26 To enable restitution to be made 26 Mental Health Court 23 Offender is alcohol dependent/needs treatment 22 No prior adult record or minor adult record 20 Credit for time served (text) 19 Problem-solving court (text) 19 Treatment (text) 18 Offender on bail or probation or parole on other charges 17 Recommendation of police 17 Prison (or more time in prison) will not serve a useful purpose 17 Drug court (text) 16 Concurrent to other offense (text) 16 Prior record score overstates offender's prior record 15 Accepts responsibility (text) 15 Non-violent prior adult record 15 More than one reason may be reported for a single offense. The word (text) after the reason indicates the reason was summarized from free form text entered by the user. Non-reason means that the text was determined not to be a reason for departure from the guidelines. All other reasons were selected from a standard list of common reasons for departure. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

56 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age County Total Number White Other Female Male Bench Trial Jury Trial Neg. Guilty Plea Non-Neg. Guilty Plea Other Adams < Allegheny 9, < < Armstrong <1 99 < Beaver 1, <1 100 <1 < Bedford <1 <1 99 <1 < Berks 3, <1 < Blair 1, <1 < Bradford < Bucks 3, <1 < < Butler 1, <1-100 < Cambria 1, <1 <1 97 < Cameron Carbon <1 <1 100 < Centre 1, < Chester 2, <1 < < Clarion < Clearfield < Clinton < Columbia < Crawford < Cumberland 2, <1 < < Dauphin 2, <1 < Delaware 5, < Elk Erie 2, < Fayette 1, < < Forest Franklin 1, < < Fulton < Greene < Huntingdon Indiana <1 <1 99 <1 < Jefferson < Juniata < Lackawanna 1, <1 99 <1 < Lancaster 2, <1 < Lawrence < < Lebanon < < Lehigh 2, <1 <1 96 < Luzerne 2, <1 < < Part III: Data Tables

57 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age County Total Number White Other Female Male Bench Trial Jury Trial Neg. Guilty Plea Non-Neg. Guilty Plea Other Lycoming 1, < McKean < <1 < Mercer < Mifflin <1 < < Monroe 1, < Montgomery 4, < < Montour Northampton 2, <1 < Northumberland < Perry < Philadelphia 5, Pike <1 < < Potter < Schuylkill 1, <1 < Snyder <1 < Somerset <1 99 <1 < Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union < Venango <1 <1 98 < Warren Washington 1, <1 < Wayne < Westmoreland 3, <1 < < Wyoming <1 100 < York 5, <1 < Total 96, < Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Because of missing data in each category, the percentages are based on different numbers of cases for each offender characteristic: Race: (N=96,590); Gender (N=96,590); Type of Conviction (N=95,892); Age (N=96,590) Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

58 Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age Offense Type Total Number White Other Female Male Bench Trial Jury Trial Neg. Guilty Plea Non-Neg. Guilty Plea Other Arson-F1 (persons) Arson-F2 (property) Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger 1, Assault-Simple 4, Assault-Simple/Ethnic Intim Assault-Terr Threat 1, < BUI Bad Checks < Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Burg-F1/No House-Person Burglary-F < Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor < Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F < Crim Trespass-F < DUI-M 13, < < DUI-M1 5, <1 < < DUI-M1 Minor Occupant <1 < DUI-M <1 < < Drug-Felony 8, Drug-Misd 15, <1 < Escape-Felony Escape-Misd < Forgery-F <1 < < Forgery-F <1 < Forgery-M Home Improvement Fraud (F2) Homicide-By Veh (DUI) Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) Homicide-By Veh while DUI Homicide-Cause Suicide Homicide-Drug Delivery Part III: Data Tables

59 Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age Offense Type Total Number White Other Female Male Bench Trial Jury Trial Neg. Guilty Plea Non-Neg. Guilty Plea Other Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder Homicide-Murder 1, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder Homicide-Murder 2, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl Identity Theft < Incest Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg < Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Obscene Materials-Fel Obscene Materials-Misd Other Felony 2, Other Misdemeanor 8, <1 < Other Misdemeanor 1 2, < Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F Robbery-F3 (w/force) Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos < Sex. Abuse /Children-Porn Sex. Offender Registry-Fel Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony 2, < Theft-Misd 7, <1 < Theft-Retail Fel 3, <1 < Theft-Retail Misd 5, <1 < < VUFA-Felony 1, VUFA-Misd < WMD-Use or Threat Total 96, < Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Because of missing data in each category, the percentages are based on different numbers of cases for each offender characteristic: Race: (N=96,598); Gender (N=96,590); Type of Conviction (N=95,892); Age (N=96,590). Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

60 Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Adams < Allegheny 9, <1 1, , , Armstrong Beaver 1, < Bedford Berks 3, , , Blair 1, Bradford <1 Bucks 3, <1 1, < , Butler 1, < Cambria 1, < Cameron Carbon < Centre 1, <1 Chester 2, <1 1, , <1 Clarion Clearfield < Clinton Columbia Crawford < Cumberland 2, < Dauphin 2, < , Delaware 5, <1 2, , Elk Erie 2, Fayette 1, Forest Franklin 1, Fulton Greene Huntingdon <1 Indiana < Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna 1, < <1 Lancaster 2, < Lawrence < Lebanon <1 Lehigh 2, < Luzerne 2, , <1 52 Part III: Data Tables

61 Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Lycoming 1, < McKean <1 Mercer < Mifflin < < Monroe 1, Montgomery 4, <1 1, , <1 Montour Northampton 2, < Northumberland < <1 Perry < Philadelphia 5,986 1, <1 1, , <1 Pike < Potter Schuylkill 1, <1 Snyder < Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna <1 Tioga Union Venango < Warren Washington 1, < Wayne < Westmoreland 3, <1 1, , Wyoming <1 York 5, <1 1, , <1 Total 96,590 11, <1 29, , , ,229 3 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

62 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only**): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Adams Allegheny 3, < , Armstrong Beaver < <1 Bedford Berks 1, Blair <1 Bradford Bucks < Butler < <1 Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre Chester < < <1 Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland Dauphin < Delaware 1, < <1 Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin <1 Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana < Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster < <1 Lawrence < Lebanon Lehigh < <1 Luzerne <1 54 Part III: Data Tables

63 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only**): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Lycoming < <1 McKean Mercer Mifflin < Monroe Montgomery 1, < < <1 Montour Northampton < < <1 Northumberland < <1 Perry Philadelphia 4,382 1, <1 1, , <1 Pike Potter Schuylkill <1 Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango < Warren Washington < <1 Wayne Westmoreland Wyoming York 1, <1 Total 27,675 8, , , , Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. **Includes murder 1 and murder 2 Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

64 Table 7. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Arson-F1 (persons) Arson-F2 (property) Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) < < Assault-Agg F2 (BI) < < Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger 1, < Assault-Simple 4, <1 1, , Assault-Simple/Ethnic Intim Assault-Terr Threat 1, < BUI Bad Checks < < Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Burg-F1/No House-Person Burglary-F Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M 13, < <1 6, , , <1 DUI-M1 5, , , < <1 DUI-M1 Minor Occupant < DUI-M Drug-Felony 8,119 2, , , <1 Drug-Misd 15, <1 2, , , Escape-Felony < <1 Escape-Misd Forgery-F Forgery-F < Forgery-M Home Improvement Fraud (F2) Homicide-By Veh (DUI) Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) Homicide-By Veh while DUI Homicide-Cause Suicide Homicide-Drug Delivery Part III: Data Tables

65 Table 7. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder Homicide-Murder 1, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder Homicide-Murder 2, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder < Homicide-Vol Mansl Identity Theft Incest Indecent Assault < Indecent Assault-Agg <1 Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Obscene Materials-Fel Obscene Materials-Misd Other Felony 2, Other Misdemeanor 8, <1 1, , Other Misdemeanor 1 2, < , Rape < Robbery-F1 (SBI) < < Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F < < <1 Robbery-F3 (w/force) < <1 Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sex. Abuse /Children-Porn Sex. Offender Registry-Fel <1 Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony 2, Theft-Misd 7, <1 1, , Theft-Retail Fel 3, <1 1, , <1 Theft-Retail Misd 5, < , VUFA-Felony 1, < VUFA-Misd WMD-Use or Threat Total 96,590 11, <1 29, , , ,229 3 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

66 Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Adams Allegheny 2, < , Armstrong Beaver Bedford Berks 1, Blair Bradford Bucks 1, < < Butler < Cambria < < <1 Cameron Carbon Centre Chester < < <1 Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland < Dauphin < Delaware 1, Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin < Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana < Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna < <1 Lancaster < < Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh Luzerne Part III: Data Tables

67 Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Lycoming < < McKean Mercer < Mifflin Monroe Montgomery 1, < < <1 Montour Northampton < < Northumberland <1 Perry Philadelphia 2, , <1 Pike Potter Schuylkill <1 Snyder Somerset < Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland < Wyoming York 1, Total 23,873 2, <1 5, , , ,709 7 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. See mandatory sentencing provisions in Appendix D. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

68 Table 9. Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2016 Type of Drug State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Drug Category Amount Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Cocaine <2 g (7th ed.) <1 2-<5 g (7th ed.) <1 5-<10 g (7th ed.) < <1 <2.5 g <10 g <50 g < <1 50-<100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 1, <1 Meth., PCP <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal Heroin <1 g 2, <1 1-<10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 3,325 1, , <1 Marijuana plants (7th ed.) Small Amount 1,243 1 < < <1 lb < <1 1-<10 lbs <1 10-<50 lbs lbs >1000 lbs <10 plants <21 plants <51 plants >=51 plants Subtotal 2, < MDMA <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g <1000 g >1000 g Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

69 Table 9. Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2016 Type of Drug State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Drug Category Amount Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Meth-lab Related Other Drug Offenses Manuf-child present Chemical reaction Chem. Reaction-1000 ft/school Ephedrine-to Manuf. Meth Illeg.Dumping Waste Possess esters-manuf Subtotal Stat Limit 6 mon 7, < < < , Stat Limit 1.5 yr <1 Stat Limit 2.5 yr Stat Limit 3.5 yr Subtotal 8, <1 1, , Other Narcotics <1 g (7th ed.) <10 g (7th ed.) <10 pills (7th ed.) <50 pills (7th ed.) <100 pills (7th ed.) pills (7th ed.) >1000 pills (7th ed.) <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g pills pills pills >100 pills Subtotal <1 Simple Simple Possession 7, <1 1, , Subtotal 7, <1 1, , Designer Drugs Designer Drugs Subtotal Total 23,873 2, <1 5, , , ,709 7 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. See mandatory sentencing provisions in Appendix D. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

70 Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Adams Allegheny 1, Armstrong Beaver < <1 Bedford Berks Blair Bradford Bucks < Butler Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre Chester 1, < Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia <1 Crawford < Cumberland Dauphin < <1 Delaware < Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana < Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh Luzerne < <1 62 Part III: Data Tables

71 Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Lycoming <1 McKean Mercer < < Mifflin Monroe Montgomery 1, < <1 Montour Northampton < Northumberland < Perry Philadelphia < Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland < Wyoming York 1, < Total 19, <1 9, , , <1 Based on Most Serous Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. See mandatory sentencing provisions in Appendix D. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

72 Table 11. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (DUI Offenses Only) : Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % DUI-1st Off: Tier 1 3,501 5 < < , <1 DUI-1st Off: Tier 1 - Minor Occupant DUI-1st Off: Tier 2 1,524 7 < <1 1, DUI-1st Off: Tier 2 - Minor Occupant DUI-1st Off: Tier 3 4, <1 3, , < DUI-1st Off: Tier 3 - Minor Occupant DUI-2nd Off: Tier 1 2, < <1 1, DUI-2nd Off: Tier 1 - Minor Occupant DUI-2nd Off: Tier 2 1,368 7 < DUI-2nd Off: Tier 2 - Minor Occupant DUI-2nd Off: Tier 3 4, <1 1, , <1 DUI-2nd Off: Tier 3 - Minor Occupant DUI-3rd Off: Tier DUI-3rd Off: Tier 1 - Minor Occupant DUI-3rd Off: Tier DUI-3rd Off: Tier 2 - Minor Occupant DUI-3rd Off: Tier 3 1, < DUI-3rd Off: Tier 3 - Minor Occupant DUI-3rd/Subsq Off: Tier 3-Minor Occupant DUI-4th/Subsq Off: Tier DUI: (97 GLs/M-1) DUI: (97 GLs/M-2) Total 19, <1 9, , , <1 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. See mandatory sentencing provisions in Appendix D. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. 100% Tier 1 100% Tier 2 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 0% 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 4th+ Offense Tier 3 100% 80% State Prison Incarceration 60% State Intermediate Punishment 40% County Jail Incarceration 20% County Intermediate Punishment 0% 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense Probation 64 Part III: Data Tables

73 Sentences Reported to the Commission on Sentencing: All Offenses, 1998 to , , ,000 75,000 50,000 25, Sentences Reported to the Commission on Sentencing: Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident, 1998 to 2016 Sentences Reported to the Commission on Sentencing: Most Serious Offense in Judicial Proceeding, 2001 to , , , , , ,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 25, Sentences Reported to the Commission on Sentencing: Most Serious Offense Per Person, 2001 to , , ,000 75,000 50,000 25, Annual Report

74 Table 12. Place of Confinement by County (2 to Less Than 5 Year Maximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Adams Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Bedford Berks Blair Bradford Bucks Butler Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre Chester Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland Dauphin Delaware < Elk Erie < Fayette Forest Franklin Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh < Luzerne Part III: Data Tables

75 Table 12. Place of Confinement by County (2 to Less Than 5 Year Maximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Lycoming McKean Mercer Mifflin Monroe Montgomery Montour Northampton Northumberland Perry Philadelphia < Pike Potter Schuylkill < Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland Wyoming York Total 6,765 5, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

76 Table 13. Place of Confinement by Offense Type (2 to Less Than 5 Year Maximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Arson-F1 (persons) Arson-F2 (property) Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Min Max Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger Assault-Simple Assault-Terr Threat Bad Checks Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Burg-F1/No House-Person Burglary-F Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M DUI-M DUI-M1 Minor Occupant DUI-M Drug-Felony 1,564 1, Drug-Misd Escape-Felony Escape-Misd Forgery-F Forgery-F Forgery-M Home Improvement Fraud (F2) Homicide-By Veh (DUI) Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) Part III: Data Tables

77 Table 13. Place of Confinement by Offense Type (2 to Less Than 5 Year Maximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison SIP County Jail Offense Type Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder Identity Theft Incest Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Obscene Materials-Fel Other Felony Other Misdemeanor Other Misdemeanor Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F Robbery-F3 (w/force) Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sex. Offender Registry-Fel Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony Theft-Misd Theft-Retail Fel Theft-Retail Misd VUFA-Felony < VUFA-Misd Total 6,765 5, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

78 Table 14. Percent Incarcerated by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2016 Offense Gravity Score Prior Record Score RFEL REVOC 14 Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number ,105 % Incar Min Number ,459 Total % Incar Min Number ,902 % Incar Min Number 1, ,228 % Incar Min Number 1, ,561 % Incar Min Number 6,142 1,926 1,457 1, , ,701 % Incar Min Number 1, ,969 % Incar Min Number 10,740 3,410 2,957 1,995 1,753 4, ,066 % Incar Min Number 4,950 1,554 1, , ,781 % Incar Min Number 15,749 3,810 2,921 1,678 1,276 2, ,396 % Incar Min Total Number 44,902 12,606 10,414 6,775 5,850 12,846 3, ,510 % Incar Min Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Does not include sentences for Homicide-Murder 1 or Homicide Murder 2. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. 70 Part III: Data Tables

79 Table 15. Incarceration Sentences with Deadly Weapon Enhancements: Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison County Jail Type (%) Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Possessed Used Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Reck Endanger Assault-Simple Assault-Terr Threat Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Carjacking Catastrophe Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M Drug-Felony Drug-Misd Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Murder 1, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder 2, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl Indecent Assault Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Other Felony Other Misdemeanor Other Misdemeanor Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F Robbery-F3 (w/force) Sex. Offender Registry-Fel Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony Theft-Misd Theft-Retail Fel Total Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

80 Sentencing Levels: Purpose, Targeted Offenders, Type of Sentence by Level Overview: offenders & purpose Offense History Recommended Sentence Length of Sentence 5 4 Targeted Offenders Purpose of sentence Targeted Offenders Purpose of sentence Very serious & most violent offenders Punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the criminal behavior & incapacitation to protect the public Very serious offenders Punishment & incapacitation Current conviction for a completed crime of violence or major drug felony (OGS>=9) State incarceration in a state facility Available Sentencing Options: Total confinement: State facility (including Motivational Boot Camp) State IP Total confinement: County facility Partial confinement: County facility County IP Numerous prior convictions State incarceration in a state or county facility Available Sentencing Options: Total confinement: State facility (including Motivational Boot Camp) State IP, Boot Camp Total confinement: County facility Partial confinement: County facility County IP Lower Limit 12 months or greater; limited to offenses with OGS 9 or greater; includes mandatories >=30 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses Lower Limit 12 months or greater, but <30 months; limited to offenses with an OGS <9; includes mandatories 12 <30 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses 3 Targeted Offenders Purpose of sentence Serious offenders Retribution & control over the offender Numerous prior convictions State or County Incarceration or County IP, Restorative Sanctions Available Sentencing Options: Total confinement: State facility (including Motivational Boot Camp) State IP Total confinement: County facility Partial confinement: County facility County IP Lower Limit of incarceration of <12 months; includes mandatories of < 12 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses Targeted Offenders Generally non violent offenders Numerous, but less serious prior convictions County Incarceration or County IP, Restorative Sanctions Lower Limit of RS; Upper Limit <12 months 2 Purpose of sentence Control over offender & restitution to victims Available Sentencing Options: Total confinement: County facility Partial confinement: County facility County IP Restorative sanctions Targeted Offenders Least serious offenders 1 or fewer prior misdemeanor convictions Restorative Sanctions (RS) RS 1 Purpose of sentence Provide minimal control necessary to fulfill courtordered obligations. Available Sentencing Options: Restorative sanctions 72 Part III: Data Tables

81 Table 15a. Incarceration Sentences with Youth or School Enhancements: Pennsylvania, 2016 Type of Drug State Prison SIP County Jail Type (%) Drug Category Amount Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Youth School Cocaine <2 g (7th ed.) <5 g (7th ed.) <10 g (7th ed.) <50 g g Subtotal Heroin <1 g <10 g <50 g Subtotal Marijuana <1 lb Subtotal Other Drug Offenses Stat Limit 2.5 yr Subtotal Other Narcotics pills (7th ed.) Subtotal Total Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

82 Table 16. Mandatory Sentences by Offense Type (Excluding Driving Under the Influence**): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison County Jail Mandatory Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Accid/Death-Injury Other Felony Min Max Subtotal Contraband Other Felony Subtotal Crimes against Elderly Theft-Felony Theft-Misd Subtotal Crimes against Infants Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Rape Subtotal Drug Trafficking Cocaine Heroin Marijuana Meth., PCP Subtotal Drugs to Minors Drug-Felony Subtotal Drugs/School Zone Drug-Felony Subtotal Firearms Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Burg-F1/House-Person Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) VUFA-Felony Subtotal Homicide-Veh while DUI Homicide-By Veh while DUI Subtotal Ignition Interlock Other Misdemeanor Subtotal Manuf. Amphetamines Drug-Felony Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

83 Table 16. Mandatory Sentences by Offense Type (Excluding Driving Under the Influence**): Pennsylvania, 2016 State Prison County Jail Mandatory Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Murder, 1st-2nd Homicide-Murder Min Max Homicide-Murder Subtotal Murder, 1st-2nd/Offender <18 Homicide-Murder 1, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder 2, Juv. Offender Subtotal Murder-3 w/prior Conviction (Life) Homicide-Murder Subtotal Off. Ag. Law Enforcement Off Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Subtotal Prohibited Bullets Sexual Assault Subtotal Public Transportation Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Subtotal Repeat Offender Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Burg-F1/House-Person Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Subtotal Sentences for Sex Offenses Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Other Felony Rape Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sex. Abuse /Children-Porn Subtotal Sex. Offender Registry Sex. Offender Registry-Fel Subtotal Total Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Also excluded: boating under the influence and driving with suspended license/bac > Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Appellate Courts have invalidated certain provisions of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. See Appendix D. Annual Report

84 Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 County Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Adams <1 2 - Allegheny 9, Armstrong Beaver 1, Bedford Berks 3, Blair 1, Bradford <1 1 1 Bucks 3, Butler 1, <1 2 <1 Cambria 1, Cameron Carbon <1 2 Centre 1, <1 9 <1 Chester 2, Clarion <1 4 <1 2 <1 Clearfield Clinton <1 <1 Columbia <1 2 <1 Crawford <1 1 8 Cumberland 2, <1 2 - Dauphin 2, <1 Delaware 5, <1 Elk Erie 2, Fayette 1, <1 Forest Franklin 1, < Fulton <1 7 Greene Huntingdon <1 Indiana <1 <1 - Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna 1, <1 Lancaster 2, Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh 2, Luzerne 2, Part III: Data Tables

85 Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County: Pennsylvania, 2016 County Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Lycoming 1, <1 2 <1 McKean <1 <1 - Mercer <1 Mifflin Monroe 1, <1 <1 Montgomery 4, Montour Northampton 2, <1 Northumberland <1 2 Perry <1 Philadelphia 5, Pike < Potter <1 Schuylkill 1, <1 - Snyder Somerset <1 2 - <1 4 Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga <1 <1 <1 Union Venango <1 2 - Warren <1 1-1 Washington 1, <1 Wayne <1 5 Westmoreland 3, <1 Wyoming <1 <1 York 5, <1 Total 96, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 96,510 sentences. Does not include sentences for Homicide Murder 1 and Homicide-Murder 2. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

86 Table 18. Conformity to the Guidelines by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 Offense Type Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Arson-F1 (persons) Arson-F2 (property) Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger 1, Assault-Simple 4, Assault-Simple/Ethnic Intim Assault-Terr Threat 1, BUI Bad Checks <1 2 - Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Burg-F1/No House-Person Burglary-F <1 Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M 13, <1 3 DUI-M1 5, DUI-M1 Minor Occupant < DUI-M Drug-Felony 8, Drug-Misd 15, <1 5 <1 Escape-Felony < Escape-Misd < Forgery-F Forgery-F Forgery-M Home Improvement Fraud (F2) Homicide-By Veh (DUI) Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) Homicide-By Veh while DUI Homicide-Cause Suicide Homicide-Drug Delivery Part III: Data Tables

87 Table 18. Conformity to the Guidelines by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2016 Offense Type Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl Identity Theft Incest Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Obscene Materials-Fel Obscene Materials-Misd Other Felony 2, <1 Other Misdemeanor 8, <1 <1 Other Misdemeanor 1 2, <1 Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F Robbery-F3 (w/force) Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sex. Abuse /Children-Porn Sex. Offender Registry-Fel Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony 2, <1 Theft-Misd 7, <1 Theft-Retail Fel 3, <1 Theft-Retail Misd 5, VUFA-Felony 1, <1 31 <1 VUFA-Misd WMD-Use or Threat Total 96, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 96,510 sentences. Does not include sentences for Homicide-Murder 1 and Homicide-Murder 2. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

88 Table 19. Conformity to the Guidelines for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2016 Type of Drug Conformity to the Guidelines(%) Drug Category Amount Total Number Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Cocaine <2 g (7th ed.) <1 2-<5 g (7th ed.) < <10 g (7th ed.) < <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 1, <1 Meth., PCP <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal <1 Heroin <1 g 2, <10 g <50 g <1 50-<100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 3, Marijuana plants (7th ed.) Small Amount 1, <1 - - <1 lb <1 1-<10 lbs <50 lbs lbs >1000 lbs <10 plants <21 plants <51 plants >=51 plants Subtotal 2, <1 MDMA <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g <1000 g >1000 g Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

89 Table 19. Conformity to the Guidelines for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2016 Type of Drug Conformity to the Guidelines(%) Drug Category Amount Total Number Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Meth-lab Related Manuf-child present Chemical reaction Chem. Reaction-1000 ft/school Ephedrine-to Manuf. Meth Illeg.Dumping Waste Possess esters-manuf Subtotal Other Drug Offenses Stat Limit 6 mon 7, <1 <1 - Stat Limit 1.5 yr Stat Limit 2.5 yr <1 Stat Limit 3.5 yr Subtotal 8, <1 1 <1 Other Narcotics <1 g (7th ed.) <10 g (7th ed.) <10 pills (7th ed.) <50 pills (7th ed.) <100 pills (7th ed.) pills (7th ed.) >1000 pills (7th ed.) <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g pills pills pills >100 pills Subtotal <1 Simple Possession Simple Possession 7, <1 Subtotal 7, <1 Designer Drugs Designer Drugs Subtotal Total 23, <1 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%. See mandatory sentencing provisions in Appendix D. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

90 Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2016 Offense Gravity Score Prior Record Score RFEL REVOC Total 14 Number % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number ,105 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number ,459 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number ,902 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 1, ,228 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 1, ,561 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 6,142 1,926 1,457 1, , ,701 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Part III: Data Tables

91 Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2016 Offense Gravity Score Prior Record Score RFEL REVOC Total 4 Number 1, ,969 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 10,740 3,410 2,957 1,995 1,753 4, ,066 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 4,950 1,554 1, , ,781 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 15,749 3,810 2,921 1,678 1,276 2, ,396 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Total Number 44,902 12,606 10,414 6,775 5,850 12,846 3, ,510 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Does not include sentences for Homicide-Murder 1 and Homicide-Murder 2. Procedural departures not reported; percentages may not total 100%. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

92 Table 21. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison: Pennsylvania, 2016 DUIs excluded PRIOR RECORD SCORE OGS LEVEL RFEL REVOC TOTAL TOTAL ,654 Based on Most Serious Offense per Offender. DUIs are excluded. Basic sentencing levels are determined by Offense Gravity Score (OGS) and Prior Record Score (PRS) only. They are displayed in color. Some offenses may have different level assignments based on mandatory sentences or enhancements. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Table 21a. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison: Pennsylvania, 2016 DUIs Only PRIOR RECORD SCORE GRADE RFEL REVOC TOTAL Unclassifed Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 1 minor occupant Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Total Based on Most Serious Offense per Offender. DUI sentences are treated as Level 3 offenses at sentencing because of the application of a mandatory sentence (unless PRS indicates Level 4). Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. 84 Part III: Data Tables

93 Table 22. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: Pennsylvania, 2016 DUIs Excluded PRIOR RECORD SCORE OGS LEVEL RFEL REVOC TOTAL , , , , ,310 TOTAL ,574 Based on Most Serious Offense per Offender DUIs are excluded. Basic sentencing levels are determined by Offense Gravity Score (OGS) and Prior Record Score (PRS) only. They are displayed in color. Some offenses may have different level assignments based on mandatory sentences or enhancements Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Table 22a. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: Pennsylvania, 2016 DUIs Only PRIOR RECORD SCORE GRADE RFEL REVOC TOTAL Unclassifed Misdemeanor ,141 Misdemeanor 1 minor occupant Misdemeanor Misdemeanor ,781 Total ,255 Based on Most Serious Offense per Offender. DUI sentences are treated as Level 3 offenses at sentencing because of the application of a mandatory sentence (unless PRS indicates Level 4). Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

94 Table 23. State and County Intermediate Punishment Eligibility and Sentences: Pennsylvania, 2016 SIP 2% State Prison 98% State Prison 95% SIP 5% Level 5 SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 819 1,760 Level 4 SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 1,653 2,942 County Jail 38% State Prison, 54% SIP,1% CIP,6% County Jail,38% State Prison,52% SIP,3% CIP, 8% SIP 4% State Prison 91% DUI/SIP 5% Level 3 SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 1,092 6,936 Sentenced 73 5,585 DUI Eligible ,268 Total Eligible 1,578 20,204 County Jail,60% SIP, <1% State Prison 8% CIP, 4% DUI/CIP, 28% SIP 14% Level 2 SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 303 7,134 CIP, 9% State Prison 86% County Jail,87% State Prison,4% SIP<1% SIP 11% Level 1 SIP CIP Sentenced 1 46 Eligible CIP, 5% State Prison 89% County Jail,94% State Prison,1% Based on Most Serious Offense per Offender. Cases including Deadly Weapon Enhancements are excluded. For SIP sentences, Eligible includes offenders sentenced to State Prison or State IP. For CIP sentences, Eligible includes offenders sentenced to State Prison, SIP, County Jail, or County IP. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. 86 Part III: Data Tables

95 Table 24. Type of Sentences Imposed by Sentencing Guideline Level: Pennsylvania, 2016 Level 5 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,569 69% State IP 33 1% County Jail % County IP 120 2% Probation 417 8% Other RS 117 2% Total 5, % Level 4 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,410 49% State IP 159 2% County Jail 2,023 29% County IP 344 5% Probation % Other RS 128 2% Total 6, % County IP 2% County Jail 18% State IP <1% County IP 5% County Jail 29% Probation 8% Probation 13% State IP 2% Other RS 2% Other RS 2% State Prison 69% State Prison 49% Level 3 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,467 9% State IP 316 1% County Jail 16,878 46% County IP 7,927 21% Probation 7,951 22% Other RS 356 1% Total 36, % Probation 22% County IP 21% Other RS 1% State Prison 9% State IP 1% County Jail 46% Level 2 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 916 3% State IP 147 0% County Jail 8,023 23% County IP 796 2% Probation 23,727 68% Other RS 1,424 4% Total 35, % Probation 68% Other RS 4% State Prison 3% State IP <1% County Jail 23% County IP 2% Level 1 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 24 0% State IP 16 0% County Jail 1,224 10% County IP 65 1% Probation 9,877 80% Other RS 1,204 10% Total 12, % Probation 80% State IP State Prison <1% <1% County Jail 10% Other RS 10% County IP 1% Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 96,510 sentences. Does not include sentences for Homicide-Murder 1 and Homicide-Murder 2. Confinement sentences, particularly at Levels 1 and 2, may reflect pre-trial detention (time served sentences), DUI mandatories, and multiple offenses in the criminal incident as well as aggravated/departures sentences. Data in this report are based upon information reported to the Commission on Sentencing by county Courts of Common Pleas. The Commission relies upon the Courts for accuracy and completeness of the data. Annual Report

96 Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score: Pennsylvania, 2016 Level 5 OGS Number Percent % % % % 10 2,105 40% 9 1,459 28% % % 6 3 0% 5 2 0% 4 0 0% 3 0 0% 2 0 0% 1 0 0% Total 5, % OGS Level 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Level 4 OGS Number Percent % 7 1,459 21% 6 1,799 26% 5 1,716 25% % % 2 0 0% 1 0 0% Total 6, % OGS Level 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Level 3 OGS Number Percent % % % % % 9 0 0% % 7 1,578 4% 6 2,759 7% 5 8,789 24% % 3 6,803 18% 2 1,665 5% 1 13,795 37% Total 36, % OGS Level 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 88 Part III: Data Tables