Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing

Transcription

1 Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Annual Report 2015 Sentencing in Pennsylvania

2 2016 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 Hon. Arthur L. Haywood, III Senate of Pennsylvania 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 Hon. Francis J. Schultz Crawford County District Attorney Mark B. Sheppard Defense Attorney Hon. Todd Stephens Pennsylvania House of Representatives 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 Susan Shaffer 2015 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 or (Western Region) or (Eastern Region) Please visit the Commission s web site for more detailed information. URL: Cover Photo Courtesy of Susan Shaffer

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, 2016 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 2015 Annual Report. This report details the work of the Commission and its staff during 2015 and provides a review of sentencing practices and aggregate statewide sentencing data during the same calendar year. A total of 135,582 offenses with corresponding sentences were reported to the Commission by the Courts of Common Pleas through February 2016, representing 93,670 criminal incidents. Sentences for calendar year 2015 reported on or after March 1, 2016 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 in 2015: Senator Leach and Representative (now Senator) Sabatina. Additionally, appreciation is expressed to ex officio members: Lloyd A. White (deceased) and John Tuttle, Chairs of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. During 2015, the Commission worked on numerous projects. The 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines were amended to include a legislatively mandated sentencing enhancement for human trafficking (Act 105 or 2014). Amendment 3 was effective September 25, The preliminary risk assessment instrument for use at sentencing (in accordance with Act 95 of 2010) continued to move forward, with beta testing scheduled for The Commission continues to work toward development of county and state parole guidelines and resentencing guidelines (Acts 81 and 83 of 2008). 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. It continues to address emerging responsibilities related to risk at sentencing, state and county parole, and resentencing. 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, Chair President Judge Court of Common Pleas First Judicial District Jill E. Rangos Vice Chair Judge Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial District

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 Criminal Justice Advisory Boards...13 Sentencing / SGS Web Assistance...14 Courses Taught...15 Risk Assessment Screening Tool Interim Reports...15 Annual Villanova Sentencing Workshop...15 Presentations...16 Staff Committee Work...17 Supporting Decision Makers...18 Legislative Reports...18 Research Bulletin...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: Reassessment of Sentencing Guidelines...22 Introduction...22 First Comprehensive Review of Sentencing Guidelines...22 Opportunities for a New Review...22 Additional Legislative Mandates...23 Justice Reinvestment Initiative...24 Strategic Planning Work Group...24 Members...25 Activities...25 Fresh Ideas...25 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 Date 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 2015

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 sentencing 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 compliance 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, Capital Complex, to facilitate it s relationship with the state government. 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, 2015 Chair Prof. Steven L. Chanenson, Villanova University School of Law Commission member January 2002 December 2015, Chair December 2012 December 2015, Vice Chair January 2012 November 2012 Vice Chair President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Philadelphia County Commission member April 2006 present, Vice Chair December 2012 December 2015 Members Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway Westmoreland County June 2011 present District Attorney Francis J. Schultz Crawford County July 2012 present Senator Arthur L. Haywood, III Montgomery (part) and Philadelphia (part) Counties (D) May 2015 present Representative Todd Stephens Montgomery County (part) (R) July present Judge Daniel J. Milliron Blair County December 2012 present Ex Officio Members PA Board of Probation and Parole John Tuttle, Acting Chairman Michael L. Green, Chairman Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris Dauphin County September 2011 December 2015 PA Department of Corrections John E. Wetzel, Secretary Representative Brandon P. Neuman Washington County (part) (D) May 2015 present PA Office of Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm, Victim Advocate Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr. Berks (part), Chester (part), and Montgomery (part) Counties (R) January present Judge Jill E. Rangos Allegheny County April 2009 present Departing Commission Members Senator Daylin B. Leach May 2011-April 2015 Representative (now Senator) John P. Sabatina January 2011-April 2015 Ex Officio Member Lloyd A. White (deceased) Chair, PA Board of Probation and Parole 4 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

13 Commission Members, 1979 to Present 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 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 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 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 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 and 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, 2015 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 Robert E. Probst, lead data input specialist Qing Zhang, data management analyst vacant, data management analyst Outreach and Policy Support *Diane E. Shoop, Ph.D., manager Ryan S. Meyers, sentencing policy specialist *Finesse Moreno-Rivera, data analyst Carrie L. Peters, sentencing policy specialist *Helene Placey, sentencing policy specialist *Nancy S. Xavios, sentencing policy specialist Research and Analysis Leigh A. Tinik, manager Haiou Hu, data analyst Vacant, research associate *Harrisburg-based positions Commission Organizational Chart 2015 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. Chair: Prof. Steven L. Chanenson Vice Chair: President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper 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 Qing Zhang Data Analyst* Finesse Moreno-Rivera Data Analyst Haiou Hu Staff Assistant* (75%) Susan M. Shaffer Lead Data Input Robert Probst Sentencing Policy Specialist Ryan Meyers Research Associate Vacant SGS Web Support Linda Bell Sentencing Policy Specialist Carrie Peters Data Management Analyst Vacant Sentencing Policy Specialist* Helene Placey Part-Time Staff Harrisburg Office Sentencing Policy Specialist* Nancy Xavios Commission Complement 17 FTE (2 Funded by Federal Grant) 2 FTE Vacancies Contracted Services PSU/MOU Research (45% faculty; 2 graduate students; 2 undergraduate students Legal Services IT Support SGS Web Support 6 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

15 THE INFRASTRUCTURE Committees, 2015 Executive and Administrative Support Role: Oversees 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. Members Prof. Chanenson, chair Pres. Judge Woods-Skipper, vice chair Sen. Haywood Sen. Rafferty Rep. Neuman Rep. Stephens Data Management Role: Oversees data collection and management via SGS Web, data management plan, and SGS Web enhancements. Reviews and approves users for access to SGS Web. Monitors information on Commonwealth sentencing practices and compliance with the guidelines and mandatory sentencing laws. Publishes data on sentencing processes and sentences actually imposed. Members Judge Rangos, 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 a clearinghouse and information center for Commonwealth sentencing and parole practices. Conducts informational meetings, seminars, and public hearings. Identifies eligible offenders for county intermediate punishment, state intermediate punishment, and state motivational boot camp. Reviews appellate court decisions and legislation. Reviews sentencing, correctional, and parole statutes and makes recommendations to the General Assembly to maintain an effective, humane, and rational sentencing and parole policy. Coordinates the development and implementation of guidelines for fines and economic sanctions, sentencing, resentencing, parole, and state recommitment ranges. Invites witnesses and requests evidence when reviewing appellate court decisions and pending sentencing- and parole-related legislation. Members President Judge Woods-Skipper, chair Defense Attorney Morris District Attorney Schultz (for purposes of policy development and review: all Commission members and ex officio members) Research and Analysis Role: Oversees the Commission s research-related legislative mandates, including ongoing evaluation of the State Intermediate Punishment Program and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program. Oversees and updates Release of Information Policy. Responsible for conducting sentencing simulations, projections, and data analysis used to inform public policy. Coordinates online access to public sentencing information. The Deputy Director oversees Commission s research agenda and special research projects, such as the Risk Assessment project. Members Judge Hathaway, chair Judge Milliron Rep. Neuman Rep. Stephens Meeting regularly over a period of 12 to 15 months (including 9 meetings in 2015), this fresh look at sentencing guidelines will culminate in recommendations to the Commission. (See page 22.) Annual Report

16 Budget The Commission received a state appropriation of $1.812 million and $283,000 in Justice Reinvestment Funds for fiscal year 2014/2015. It was 95% of the total operating budget. Federal grants for specific projects comprised the remainder, as the following graph and chart illustrate. State Appropriations and Federal Grants: Fiscal Years 2001/2002 to 2014/2015 State Federal Total Fiscal Year Appropriation Grant Funds Operating Budget 2001/2002 $935,000 $983,961 $1,918, /2003 $992,000 $1,014,000 $2,006, /2004 $992,000 $1,150,146 $2,141, /2005 $992,000 $1,435,904 $2,427, /2006 $1,120,000 $1,138,912 $2,258, /2007 $1,120,000 $1,338,349 $2,458, /2008 $1,470,000 $1,117,447 $2,587, /2009 $1,451,000 $488,018 $1,939, /2010 $1,159,000 i $694,871 $1,853, /2011 $1,397,000 ii $376,419 $1,773, /2012 $1,327,000 $174,372 $1,501, /2013 $1,800,000 $571,024 $2,371, /2014 iii $1,812,000 $371,155 $2,183, /2015 iv $2,101,000 $114,599 $2,215,599 i ii Includes $350,369 ARRA funds Includes $66,130 in ARRA funds iii Includes $12,000 Justice Reinvestment Initiative Funds iv Includes $283,000 Justice Reinvestment Initiative Funds During fiscal year 2014/2015, the Commission expended $2.5 million in order to undertake its work. Personnel costs consumed the largest proportion of funds. 8 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

17 Grants During fiscal year 2014/2015, the Commission received $114,599 in Byrne Justice Grants (JAG). Grant funds applied to the following projects: Grant Name Amount Sentencing Technical Assistance and Training $87,940 County Revocation and Resentencing Data Collection $ 26,659 Total $114,599 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 2014/2015 fiscal year (January 1 through June 30, 2015). 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 2014/2015 fiscal year (April 1 through June 30, 2015). 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 is nearing the beta testing stage. 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. Thus, any collection of information and reporting into SGS Web for risk assessment purposes would be minimized. 10 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

19 MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS 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 PA Supreme Court invalidated all guidelines due to procedural error in 1981 when legislature rejected the 1987 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 2004 Act 112 established State Intermediate Punishment as a new sentencing alternative. Commission mandated to 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 Guideline Editions Legislation Impacts Commission Other 2008 Acts 81 and 83 mandated development of parole and resentencing guidelines and recommitment ranges, 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 2010 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 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 2015, four Commission meetings were held: March 19, June 4, September 3, and December 3. The March, June, and December meetings were held in the Commission Committee Highlights Executive and Administrative Support Contracted for an independent audit of fiscal year 2014/2015. Worked with state s PennWatch group to advance Commission s efforts of transparency. Fiscal information is included in the online system. Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, located in the Capitol Complex. September s meeting was held at The Pennsylvania State University s University Park campus. Three public hearings on proposed Amendment 3 to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines were held: May 13 (Philadelphia), May 15 (Pittsburgh), and June 3 (Harrisburg). 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 review financial procedures and begin development of automated system based on recommendations. Conducted nine 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 incorporate 7th Edition Amendment 3 Sentencing Guidelines and to reflect changes to statute. Deployed a series of changes to SGS Web to prepare for implementation of the Risk Assessment Instrument for use at sentencing. Supported the revision of the sentencing guidelines through analysis, input from the field, and material preparation. Completed judge verification of sentencing data for Initiated Justice Reinvestment Initiative Project for revocations of probation, county intermediate punishment, and state intermediate punishment and subsequent resentencing. Research and Analysis Completed and issued the 2015 Legislative Report on Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program. Released a Research Bulletin: Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program: Summary of Legislative Report [vol.14,issue 1]. Released two interim reports on Phase 2 of the Risk Assessment Project: 1) Interim Report 1. Development of Risk Assessment Scale by OGS for all Offenders and 2) Special Report. The Impact of Removing Demographic Factors. Validated risk assessment instrument by offense gravity score for all offenders. Responded to Pennsylvania state decision-makers needs for data in addition to 62 sentencing data set requests made by 9 researchers and 49 requests for data reports. Assessed the resource utilization of the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines Amendment Part I: The Commission and Its Work

21 Supporting Criminal Justice Practitioners Seminars The Commission devoted significant resources during 2015 to educational programs in sentencing, the application of sentencing guidelines, and specific topics for court professionals. During the year, 1,103 individuals attended seminars. 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. Three sessions held in Reading; two sessions held in Harrisburg; two sessions held in Cranberry Township; one session each held in Clarion, Malvern, Philadelphia, Pottsville, Scranton, and State College. Sentencing Updates Provides an overview of recent amendments to the sentencing guidelines and updates to specific sentencing-related statutes. Three sessions held in State College; one session each held in Berks, Bradford, Carlisle, Fort Washington, Philadelphia, Scranton, Waynesburg, and Williamsport. 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. - Basic Prosecutors Course Two sessions for the PA District Attorneys Institute s Basic Prosecutors Course. - Basic Training Academy Four sessions held for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Basic Training Academy. - County Intermediate Punishment and Sentencing Guidelines One session held for Bucks County court staff. - Mandatory Mininum Sentences and Sentencing Enhancements One session held for members and staff of the General Assembly, Harrisburg. - Prior Record Score One session held for Philadelphia Adult Probation, Pre-Sentencing Investigation Unit. - Sentencing and Guideline Updates One session held for Washington County and one session for Cambria County Court staff. - SGS Web One session held for Washington County Court staff, Washington. - Update on Legislative Mandates 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 21,140 visitors in While 53% of those visitors were new, 11,727 were unique visitors. The sentencing guidelines were the most often accessed pages. 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). More than 1,000 visitors were recorded, with 80% being new visitors. Criminal Justice Advisory Boards The Sentencing Commission, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), supported the efforts of County Criminal Justice Advisory Boards (CJABs) in several ways. In 2007, the Commission and PCCD began a collaborative effort to provide counties with technical and training assistance through the dedication of limited funding to support local initiatives. The intent was to provide a means for counties to apply for smaller amounts of funds without the need of a lengthy grant application process. In 2015, $24,000 in grant funds were awarded to 17 counties. Since 2007, more than $194,680 has been awarded to counties, totaling 135 grants. 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 2015, staff responded to 1,048 requests for information or assistance on sentencing and sentencing guidelines and more than 1,640 requests for technical assistance with SGS Web. Additionally, 255 requests for SGS Web user roles were processed. 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 across the Commonwealth accounted for 84% 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 Sentencing Questions or Guideline Assistance Regional Assignments West East West or East or Allegheny Franklin Adams Monroe Armstrong Fulton Berks Montgomery Beaver Greene Bradford Montour Bedford Huntingdon Bucks Northampton Blair Indiana Carbon Northumberland Butler Jefferson Chester Perry Cambria Lawrence Columbia Philadelphia Cameron McKean Cumberland Pike Centre Mercer Dauphin Schuylkill Clarion Mifflin Delaware Snyder Clearfield Potter Juniata Sullivan Clinton Somerset Lackawanna Susquehanna Crawford Venango Lancaster Tioga Elk Warren Lebanon Union Erie Washington Lehigh Wayne Fayette Westmoreland Luzerne Wyoming Forest Lycoming York 14 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

23 Courses Taught The executive director taught an undergraduate course in the spring and fall 2015 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 2015 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 2015 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. Risk Assessment Screening Tool Interim Reports As the Commission builds the foundation for a risk assessment screening tool for use at sentencing, it has prepared interim reports on its work. All 11 reports are available on the Commission s web site. See page 21 for more information. During 2015, the following reports were released: Phase II, Interim Report 1. Development of a Risk Assessment Scale by Offense Gravity Score for all Offenders, and Phase II, Special Report. Impact of Removing Demographic Factors. The 2015 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 Montgomery County Deputy District Attorney Thomas W. McGoldrick and Bradford County Chief Public Defender Helen A. Stolinas. In addition, PBPP members Edward L. Burke and Jeffrey R. Imboden participated and shared their expertise in how parole decisions are made. Daniel J. Anders, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judiciary Member Participants in the 2015 Villanova Sentencing Workshop Travis W. Livengood, Bedford County Court of Common Pleas Stephen G. Baratta, Northampton County Court of Common Pleas Marc F. Lovecchio, Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas Kelly Eileen Bigley, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Annual Report

24 Presentations The executive director presented the following during 2015: Overview for Villanova Sentencing Workshop Participants. January 2015, Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, PA. Pennsylvania Sentencing Updates. January 2015, Allegheny County Continuing Legal Education, Pittsburgh, PA. Risk Assessment Development in Pennsylvania (Roundtable). February 2015, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC. Overview of Sentencing and Guidelines in Pennsylvania. March 2015, Harrisburg Area Community College, Harrisburg, PA. The Use of Risk Assessments in Bail and Sentencing Determinations. March 2015, Northern District of California Judiical Conference, Napa, CA. Updates on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Guidelines, and Enhancements. April 2015, Legislative Seminar, Harrisburg, PA. Overview, part of Halt and Reform: Death Penalty and Criminal Sentencing Guidelines Reform. April 20, 2015, Widener University Law Journal Symposium, Harrisburg, PA. Emerging Trends and the Future Direction of Criminal Justice. April 2015, Community Corrections Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference, State College, PA. Sentencing Commission Update. June 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Criminal Law Symposium, Harrisburg, PA. Sentencing Guidelines Overview and Update. June 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Sentencing in Pennsylvania Courts, Mechanicsburg, PA. Sentencing Guidelines Overview and Update. June 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Sentencing in Pennsylvania Courts, Pittsburgh, PA. Sentencing Guidelines Overview and Update. June 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute Sentencing in Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia, PA. Risk Assessment Overview. September 2015, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency quarterly meeting, Harrisburg, PA. Justice Reinvestment Roundtable. September 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Association, Corrections System Committee, Prison Overcrowding Subcommittee, Harrisburg, PA. Review of Sentencing Guidelines Roundtable. October 2015, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC. Media interviews were conducted with the executive director on: Evidence-Based Decisions, Risk Assessment Tools. April 2015, ProPublica. Risk Assessment in Pennsylvania. May 2015, FiveThirtyEight (ABC News affiliate). Risk Assessment in Pennsylvania. June 2015, France 2 (national television). The New Science of Sentencing: Should Prison Sentences be Based on Crimes That Have Not Been Committed Yet? August 2015, Marshall Project. Risk Assessment in Pennsylvania. August 2015, The Times of London, ZDF German Television, WITF. Risk Assessment in Pennsylvania. December 2015, Fox News Channel. Additional technical assistance activities of the executive director included: Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing Reforms. February 2015, California Governor s Office, Deputy Secretary of Legal Affairs, teleconference. Sentencing Commissions, Guidelines, and Corrections Reforms. May 2015, Governor of California, teleconference. Evidence-Based Practices, Cost-Benefit Analysis. May 2015, Vera Institute of Justice, Center for Sentencing and Corrections, teleconference. Risk Assessment. May 2015, Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, teleconference. JNET and Data Integration. June 2015, Alaska Multi-Agency Justice Integration Consortium, teleconference. History of Guidelines, Correctional Reforms, Risk Assessment. July 2015, Oxford Handbooks OnLine (Sentencing Policies and Practices in Pennsyvania), interview. Pennsylvania s Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Com. v. Hopkins. Families Against Mandatory Minimums, teleconference. Government Fragmentation, Incarceration Growth. December 2015, Johns Hopkins University, interview. Other staff members presented: Risk Assessment Tool. March 2015, Criminal Justice Advisory Board Conference, State College, PA. SGS Web Enhancements. April 2015, JNET County Integration meeting, State College, PA. Sentencing and SGS Web Updates. March, June, September, and December 2015, 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 Administrative Office of PA Courts, Problem Solving Court Advisory Committee Administrative Office of PA Courts, Veterans Justice Statewide Task Force guidelines and to help create and enhance consistent, rational, equitable, and fair sentencing policy and practices. Participation in 2015 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, Courts and Corrections Committee County Commissioners Association of PA, Criminal Justice Unified Case Management Steering Committee Joint State Government Commission, Juvenile Act Advisory Committee Justice Reinvestment Initiative, 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 Corrections, Department of Corrections/PA Board of Probation and Parole Transition Team 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 Vera Institute of Justice, Cost Benefit Analysis Advisory Board 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. Legislative Reports The Commission submitted the following report: Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program, Report to the Legislature, January Research Bulletin The Commission published one Research Bulletin during 2015: Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program: Summary of 2015 Legislative Report (Vol. 14 No. 1, March 2015). 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 2015, 9 researchers or research entities requested 62 sentencing data sets. Requests originated from the Council of State Governments, Indiana University of PA, National Public Radio, University of Chicago Law School, University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, University of Pittsburgh, and Yale University. The Commission responded to 49 requests for sentencing information or reports, of which 30% were for the General Assembly or other state and county government agencies. The remaining requests were from researchers, the media, private attorneys, associations, and others. Data requests included, but were not limited to: Justice Reinvestment Initiative tracking metrics pertaining to sentencing. Sentencing imposed and lengths of sentences used in analyses of House Bills 44, 656, 969, 1601, and 1632, and Senate Bills 166 and 943. Sentencing trends for the Criminal Justice Population and Projections Committee. OnLine Data Reports The Commission s online sentencing reports website was launched in More than 1,000 visitors were reported in Of those visitors, 80% 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 36). 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 2015 laws: Act New offense under 18 Pa.C.S. 4913(a.1), impersonate doctor of medicine, provide medical advice or treatment. Act New offense under 18 Pa.C.S. 5511(h.2), possession of animal fighting paraphernalia. Act New offense under 18 Pa.C.S. 2709(a.1), cyber harrassment of a child. Act New offense of falsely represents as a veteran on drivers license application under 75 Pa.C.S. 1510(a.1)(4). Penalty provisions are found under 18 Pa.C.S. 4904(b). Act Repeal of municipal housing code avoidance under 18 Pa.C.S and placed offense under 56 P.S. 6115(a). Relevant Case Law Pennsylvania s appellate courts (Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court) issued opinions during 2015 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. Veon, 109 A.3d 754 Super) Restitution (2/6/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 110 A.3d 146 (2/17/2015, PA) County Intermediate Punishment, Mandatory, RRRI Commonwealth v. Jackson, 111 A.3d 1187 (2/17/2015, PA Super) Merger Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (3/5/2015, PA Super) Constitutionality, Discretionary Aspects, Enhancement, Guidelines, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (3/11/2015, PA Super) Concurrent/ Consecutive Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (3/17/2015, PA Super) Appeal Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (3/20/2015, PA Super) Appeal, Guidelines, PSI Commonwealth v. Devries, 112 A.3d 663 (3/20/2015, PA Super) Enhancement Commonwealth v. Cristina, 114 A.3d 419 (4/14/2015, PA Super) Juvenile Offenders Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (4/20/2015, PA Super) Constitutionality, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Giannantonio, 114 A.3d 429 (4/20/2015, PA Super) Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (4/21/2015, PA Super) Guidelines, Merger Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (4/24/2015, PA) Credit Commonwealth v. Schultz, 116 A.3d 1116 (5/4/2015, PA Super) State Intermediate Punishment Commonwealth v. Wright, 116 A.3d 133 Super) Revocation (5/8/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (5/29/2015, PA Super) Appeal, Concurrent/ Consecutive, Guidelines Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415 (6/8/2015, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (6/9/2015, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (6/15/2015, PA) Constitutionality, Double Jeopardy, Mandatory Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 Super) Mandatory (7/7/2015, PA Commonwealth v. McNeal, 120 A.3d 313 (7/16/2015, PA Super) Revocation Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (7/16/2015, PA Super) PSI Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255 (7/20/2015, PA) Appeal Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511 Super) Modification (7/24/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 121 A.3d 530 (7/28/2015, PA Super) Mandatory, Megan s Law/SORNA Commonwealth v. Carter, 122 A.3d 388 (9/1/2015, PA Super) Mandatory Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 123 A.3d 1065 (9/11/2015, PA Super) Appeal, County Intermediate Punishment Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (9/16/2015, PA Super) Appeal, Concurrent/ Consecutive, Modification, Revocation Commonwealth v. Hanna, 124 A.3d 757 Super) Enhancement, RRRI (10/2/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Walsh, 125 A.3d 1248 (10/23/2015, PA Super) PCRA Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 125 A.3d 1272 (10/29/2015, PA Super) Merger Commonwealth v. Gaines, 127 A.3d 15 Super) PCRA (11/5/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Spenny, 128 A.3d 234 (11/17/2015, PA Super) Guidelines, Prior Record Commonwealth v. Steckley, 128 A.3d 826 (11/30/2015, PA Super) PCRA Commonwealth v. Dawson, 132 A.3d Super) Enhancement Commonwealth v. Ciani, 130 A.3d 780 Super) Merger (12/8/2015), PA (12/23/2015, PA Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (12/30/2015, PA Super) Appeal, Mandatory Annual Report

28 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: 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. expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence, a majority (63%) were released before the expiration of their regular minimum sentence. Thus, the RRRI Program does have some impact on reducing the prison population. Short minimum sentences, resulting in the inability of offenders to complete their programming, appear to be a major reason that offenders could not be released at the expiration of their RRRI minimum sentence. About 31% of RRRI offenders had six months or less of their RRRI sentence left to serve when they arrived at the DOC. There was no difference in the overall recidivism of RRRI offenders and non-rrri offenders. However, non-rrri offenders were more likely to have a new arrest, and RRRI offenders were more likely to have a technical violation. Thus, the reduced RRRI sentence does not appear to pose a greater threat to public safety. 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 2015 Legislative Report on Pennsylvania s Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program include: About 26% of the offenders sentenced to the Department of Corrections received a RRRI sentence. A large percentage [46%] of RRRI eligible offenders did not receive a RRRI minimum sentence. While only a minority of RRRI offenders (26%) were released within one week of the 20 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

29 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. Phase I of this project developed an initial risk assessment instrument for Level 3 and Level 4 offenders. Initially, the Commission was planning on beta testing the instrument in the four focus groups counties (Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland) that have been assisting the Commission in the development of the tool. However, the Commission delayed the beta testing for two reasons. First, it was decided that it would be better to beta test when an instrument is developed for offenders at all guideline levels. Second, as a result of feedback from the participants in the focus groups, it was decided to test the feasibility of obtaining the criminal history used as part of the risk assessment scale from the Common Pleas Case Management System [CPCMS], rather than the State Police. It will allow for all factors used in the risk assessment scale to be prepopulated and eliminate the need for the user to manually research and/or compute and input any of the information used in the risk assessment instrument. Thus, the Commission is currently working on the development of a risk scale for each offense gravity score [rather than by guideline levels] and replicating the Level 3 and 4 study with data obtained from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) to determine the feasibility of using their information to import criminal history for the purposes of the risk scale. Beta testing will be undertaken in The Commission released nine reports on the first phase of the Risk Assessment Project and two reports in the second phase, which can be found on the Commission s website: 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) Special Report. Impact of Removing Demographic Factors (2015) Annual Report

30 Responding to Initiatives: Review of Sentencing Guidelines 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. This year, the Commission recaps the work of the Strategic Planning Work Group and its review of sentencing guidelines. Introduction Since its creation in 1979, the Commission on Sentencing has worked diligently to meet its various mandates and help improve the Commonwealth s criminal justice system. As a legislative service agency, the Commission works as a partner with the General Assembly and all other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. It develops impact analyses on pending legislation and is a member of the Criminal Justice Population Projections Committee, both of which look at short- and long-term trends in the criminal justice system. The Commission regularly reviews and revises sentencing guidelines. These revisions are often in response to legislative directives (develop sentencing enhancements) and innovations (new sentencing alternatives or programs). Many revisions are reactive and by necessity adopted piecemeal. As evidenced with the 7th Edition, amendments have become more frequent, with new guidelines enacted in 2012 and amendments in three subsequent years. The Commission recognizes the value of a more proactive approach and an overall assessment of the sentencing guidelines. More than 20 years have passed since the Commission undertook a wholesale reassessment of its work. Incremental change to address legislative mandates maintains the status quo but does not readily allow for innovative thinking. Additionally, more recent legislative mandates for development of resentencing guidelines, county and state parole guidelines, state parole recommitment ranges, and a risk assessment instrument for use at sentencing require integration into a systematic approach from sentencing though parole and any subsequent revocations, resentencing, and reparole. Last, efforts by the Justice Reinvestment Initiatives, Phases I and II, impact sentencing and parole. Thus, a fresh look at sentencing guidelines can help support and inform all these components. First Comprehensive Review of Sentencing Guidelines The first comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines began in 1990, but was influenced by critical events that would shape the resulting 4th Edition (1994) and 5th Edition (1997) sentencing guidelines: a riot at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (1989), and the fallout from the commutation of Reginald McFadden (1994) and the parole of Robert Mudman Simon (1995), both of whom were convicted of murder following their releases. In the aftermath of the Camp Hill riot, the General Assembly enacted legislation establishing a sentencing alternative of county intermediate punishment (CIP) and creating a State Motivational Boot Camp Program within the Department of Corrections. Following the gubernatorial election in which the Lieutenant Governor (Chair of the Board of Pardons which recommended the commutation of McFadden) was defeated, the 1995 Special Session on Crime passed a Three Strikes bill and numerous other reforms to address violent offenders. A Rural Judges Advisory Committee and the Subcommittee Advisors assisted the Commission in reviewing and re-writing the guidelines, incorporating restrictive intermediate punishment/drug and alcohol treatment (RIP/D&A) as a clinical alternative to confinement, creating the Repeat Violent Offender (REVOC) category as a counterpart to Three Strikes, and establishing sentencing levels to more clearly address purposes of sentencing. There have been numerous modifications and amendments to the guidelines since the implementation of the 5th Edition. The 6th Edition Sentencing Guidelines were effective June 3, 2005 and revised in The 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines (effective December 28, 2012) were amended three times to address legislative mandates (September 27, 2013, September 26, 2014, and September 25, 2015). These latter changes have been incremental and built on a framework established in the mid-1990 s. Not only does this approach contribute to the complexity of the guidelines, but it limits the Commission s ability to respond to legislative mandates in a timely manner. Opportunities for a New Review It is an opportune time to reexamine the sentencing guidelines from structure to philosophy given the length of time since a comprehensive review of guidelines was undertaken and the expanded responsibilities given the Commission. The timing also recognizes the convergence of numerous tasks and opportunities, including: a rebuilding of the Commission s SGS Web JNET-based application, which collects sentencing information from County Courts of Common Pleas, to better leverage data available from other sources, to aggregate sentences, and to incorporate parole and time served information; legislative activity in responses to the invalidation of numerous mandatory minimum sentencing statutes; the JRI-II review of sentencing complexity and variation; and the growing intricacies of the sentencing guidelines due to the ad hoc modifications and amendments to address legislative directives. 22 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

31 It is also the first possibility for a comprehensive review of the guidelines since a number of landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court. sentencing. But of equal importance, the Commission s requirement to adopt sentencing guidelines was amended to add the following: A comprehensive package of reforms, driven by revised sentencing guidelines, would increase certainty, transparency, sustainability, and system-wide coordination. Instead of being reactive to legislative directives and court decisions, the Commission can be proactive in charting a sustainable path forward. Additional Legislative Mandates In 2008, the Commission s original sentencing mandate was expanded to include responsibility for developing guidelines for re-sentencing, parole (county and state), and state parole recommitment ranges (Acts 81 and 83 of 2008). The goal is to increase accountability, enhance transparency, and provide greater coordination between sentencing and parole. (The 2014 Annual Report provides an update on the additional mandates). Additionally, in 2010, the Commission was directed to develop a risk assessment instrument for use at recommend confinement that is 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 the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the offender (Act 95 of 2010). The Commission was also instructed to address the incapacitation of serious violent offenders and to recommend sentences of increased severity for those who pose a substantial risk to public safety. These new duties provide an opportunity and an obligation for the Commission to provide a more consistent classification of offenders (e.g., violent, non-violent, etc.) in order to promote more effective and complementary practices as cases move through the criminal justice system. Annual Report

32 Justice Reinvestment Initiative A comprehensive review of Pennsylvania s criminal justice system was central to the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI-I) in 2012 which addressed back end reforms. Deliverables included better coordination between the Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole, elimination of certain prerelease programs, and the re-working of consequences for technical violations of parole. The Commonwealth s commitment to a second phase of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI-II) began in March It recognizes unmet front end challenges in three key areas: county impacts and outcomes; sentencing complexity and variation; and prison and parole volumes. Strategic Planning Work Group Given the above reasons, the Commission established a Strategic Planning Work Group (SPWG) in The SPWG had the opportunity to: consider other changes in the criminal justice system during the past 20 years; discuss concepts that could guide a reenvisioning of the guidelines; review the current guidelines; consider the sentencing guidelines as a predicate to resentencing and parole guidelines; and suggest a framework for consideration of the programs and alternatives available within Pennsylvania s indeterminate sentencing system that would be proactive rather than reactive. The SPWG s efforts are consistent with the Commission s duty to serve in a consulting capacity to state courts and in making recommendations to the General Assembly concerning modification of The Commission appreciates the time and thoughtful insights provided by members of the Strategic Planning Work Group. The Work Group was chaired by then Commission Chair, Villanova Law School Professor Steven L. Chanenson. Members Dante J. Battles, Supervisor, Special Programs, Erie County Adult Probation P. Karen Blackburn, Problem-Solving Courts Coordinator, Administrative Office of PA Courts Alfred Blumstein, J. Erik Jonsson Professor, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University Bradley S. Bridge, Esquire, Assistant Defender, Defenders Association of Philadelphia Kelly J. Cesari, Treatment Court Coordinator, Luzerne County Adult Probation David R. Crowley, Esquire, Chief Public Defender, Centre County Public Defender s Office Philip W. Damiani Jr., Court Executive Director (Retired), Delaware County James E. Depasquale, Esquire, Law Office of James E. Depasquale Hon. John H. Foradora, President Judge, Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas C. James Fox, Chief Hearing Examiner, PA Board of Probation and Parole Lisa Freeland, Federal Public Defender, Western District of PA Hon. Benjamin Lerner, Senior Judge, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Hon. Jeffrey L. Mensch, Magisterial District Judge, District Court Hon. Thomas G. Miller, Magisterial District Judge, District Court Barry L. Nelson, Investigator Supervisor Sex Offender Assessment Board Brinda C. Penyak, Deputy Director, County Commissioners Association of PA John Ridge, Assistant Chief Adult Probation Officer, Washington County Adult Probation Linda Rosenberg, Executive Director, PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency Greg Rowe, Chief, Legislation and Policy Unit, Philadelphia District Attorney s Office Sean R. Ryan, Chief Probation Officer, Bucks County Adult Probation and Parole Ann Schwartzman, Executive Director, PA Prison Society Keith B. Snyder, Executive Director, Juvenile Court Judges Commission Hon. Craig W. Stedman, District Attorney, Lancaster County District Attorney s Office Edward Sweeney, Director of Corrections, Lehigh County Department of Corrections Hon. Shawn C. Wagner, Judge, Adams County Court of Common Pleas Hon. Louise B. Williams, Judge, Vice Chair of Victims Services Advisory Committee Hon. Joseph K. Williams, III, Judge, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Brad Winnick, Chief Public Defender, Dauphin County Diana Woodside, Director, Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs, PA Department of Corrections Hon. Margherita Patti Worthington, President Judge, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas Amy Zapp, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Commission Staff Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director, Ryan Meyers, Policy Sentencing Specialist Nancy Xavios, Policy Sentencing Specialist 24 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

33 sentencing, parole, and correctional statutes to carry out an effective, humane and rational sentencing, resentencing, and parole policy. The goals of SPWG review included looking for ways to: 1) streamline and simplify the process, 2) incorporate and better manage the numerous sentencing enhancements, and 3) promote greater certainly and more efficient use of correctional resources. These goals are in line with the issues raised as part of JRI-I and later highlighted as key issues for JRI-II. Members Since the intent was to think outside the box and to look at best practices in other jurisdictions, the work group involved practitioners representing key areas of the criminal justice system and included many individuals with direct contact with offenders but limited involvement with preparing sentencing guidelines. The involvement of prosecutors, defense attorneys, common pleas judges, and probation staff was the exception. Other factors considered in the selection of participants included geographic and county class balance as well as diversity in terms of gender and race. Activities Over the course of 20 months and 16 meetings, a diverse group of 34 criminal justice professionals reviewed information and discussed options to improve the efficacy of Pennsylvania s criminal justice system, in part by taking a fresh look at the sentencing guidelines. The work group reviewed criminal justice policies generally and the sentencing guidelines and rules in particular. In order to conduct a systematic review and involve all participants in the discussions, staff prepared four approaches for group meetings: a SWOT analysis; a mapping of issues and decisions using a criminal justice system workflow; a questionnaire; and a review of sentencing data. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis identified internal and external factors, favorable or unfavorable within Pennsylvania s current sentencing system. The SPWG noted that the indeterminate sentencing, sentencing guidelines, and sentencing alternatives were all strengths of the system. The lack of consistent and uniform information across the state is a weakness as is the complexity of sentencing and variable maximum sentences. Additionally, the fragmented criminal justice system and inconsistencies in policies and practices across counties was highlighted. The SPWG also saw opportunities in abilities to make statutory changes, use of research to inform policy decisions, and cross system integration. However, they also noted threats in funding and resources, caseloads, collateral impacts of incarceration, and lengths of supervision. Next, the work group completed an in depth review of the criminal justice system workflow and available sentencing alternatives. Three distinct intercepts within the system were identified: pre-trial, trial/sentencing, and parole/reentry. In an effort to follow up with the SWOT analysis findings, work group members identified and further investigated the purposes and issues specific to each intercept. A questionnaire was designed to elicit feedback from work group members on the typical uses of various sentencing alternatives as well as offender and offense based adjustment factors that may impact sentences. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: sentencing dispositions; offense-related sentencing adjustments; and offender-related adjustments. Group members reviewed sample offenses and selected appropriate dispositions for a typical case. They indicated any support for the use of a treatment alternative. They also identified any reasons for offense subcategorization, aggravating or mitigating reasons, and any separation into offense- or offender-related categories. The feedback received helped to identify important aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors and to distinguish between those factors that could be determined objectively and those factors that were more subjective. The work group also thought it was critical to include consideration of the impact on victims and the concerns of victims when discussing the use of sentencing alternatives and programs. It was decided to solicit comments from county victim advocates. To this end, a survey of county victim/witness coordinators was administered by Director of PCCD s Office of Victim Services. The survey included questions regarding victims being afforded their rights at sentencing; whether victims are involved and/or informed of negotiated pleas; whether victims are able to provide impact statements; and concerns with the current sentencing guidelines as well as various sentencing alternatives and programs. In addition to the tasks described above, the work group toured two correctional facilities (Lehigh County Jail and SCI Camp Hill) and met with inmates in each institution. They received a presentation on risk-needs-responsivity from Dr. Doug Marlowe; held a roundtable discussion regarding problem-solving courts, drug dependency and mental illness; and met with representatives of the County Chief Adult Probation Officers Association and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole to discuss resources and evidence-based practices. Fresh Ideas After raising and considering many issues, the SPWG offered ideas and suggestions for the Commission s consideration. Specifically, it suggested a revamped structure of the sentencing guidelines framework. Annual Report

34 Additionally, the group proposed changes to the present controlled substance categories and to other sentencing-related policies and statutes. The Commission is appreciative of the efforts and suggestions of the SPWG. After a review of its report, the Commission determined a more in depth review and analysis should occur to move any initiatives forward. It is convening three separate subcommittees, each with a distinct focus. The first group will concentrate on an offense-related guidelines review, the second on an offender-related guidelines review, and the third on a sentencing policy review. Offense-Related Guidelines Review Subcommittee The SPWG suggested a sentencing guidelines framework that is based on one sentencing matrix to reduce complexity and provide sustainability. It offered that the Commission may wish to review current weight or dosage categories for drug offenses as well as the role of the offender in those offenses. The Offense-Related Guidelines Review Subcommittee may consider a matrix that more explicitly targets the use of sentencing alternatives. The number of offense gravity scores (OGS) and associated sentencing levels could be expanded. OGS assignments for offenses may be recalibrated based on current policies and data analyses. Enhancements may be handled through increases in OGS assignments rather than by separate matrices or modifications to cell ranges. Just as the Commission currently has an omnibus OGS policy for newly created offenses, such a policy could be implemented for sentencing enhancements. Expanding the number of offense gravity scores (OGS) will allow for systematic and consistent incorporation of new enhancements through increases in OGS. Offender-Related Guidelines Subcommittee The SPWG suggested the Commission investigate a reduction of the impact of criminal history through modified prior record score (PRS) categories and policies. The Offender-Related Guidelines Review Subcommittee may consider changes in how prior convictions are scored and a merging of the current Repeat Felony 1 and 2 Offender (RFEL) and Repeat Violent Offender (REVOC) categories of PRS. Additionally, it may investigate decay and gap policies pertaining to older criminal convictions which may increase both the likelihood of incarceration and the duration of an offender s sentence solely based on an offender s criminal history. Sentencing Policy Review Subcommittee The SPWG raised many issues that also are of concern in JRI-II. Products from JRI-II will include recommendations for changes in statute and for the Commission s consideration. A Brief History of Sentencing Guidelines in Pennsylvania One primary goal of Pennsylvania s guidelines is to reduce unwarranted disparity in criminal sentences. However, there were other significant motivations for establishing the Commission in 1978 and requiring the creation of sentencing guidelines. They included deflecting a move to mandatory minimum sentences, preserving judicial discretion while restricting its unwarranted use and abuse, and addressing excessive leniency, particularly for serious violent offenses. While other jurisdictions directed sentencing commissions to take into account prison capacity in developing guidelines., Pennsylvania chose not to include this requirement of linking the guidelines to actual correctional capacity. 1 A principal purpose for the establishment of the Commission was to create and maintain a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy by adopting guidelines to promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices throughout the Commonwealth. The approach builds around the concept of a common starting point for sentencing. It includes a range of recommendations based on factors such as offense severity, criminal history, and offender characteristics, so that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentence recommendations. Recognizing that many factors related to the offense and the offender must be considered by the court when imposing an appropriate and individualized sentence, the aim of the guidelines is to recommend the typical sentence for the typical offender, and then to provide ample opportunities for the court to sentence outside this standard range (i.e., aggravated range, mitigated range, departure above or below the guidelines), as long as the court articulates the reason or reasons for the deviation. The initial guidelines adopted by the Commission (1980) 2 were remarkable in terms of the number of instances where the recommendations were restricted to non-confinement and/or county jail (less than 41%), with many ranges for county jail sentences limited to three months. Also of note were the numerous constraints within the guidelines, including: an exclusive list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; lapsing of prior record for most third degree felonies and all misdemeanors following a sixyear crime-free period; limits on application of the offender criminal history score at sentencing; and standards regarding the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. 26 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

35 Adjustments to offense rank were provided for inchoates, as well as offenses involving possession/ use of a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm, and/or resulting in serious bodily injury. The aggravated and mitigated ranges were determined by moving one cell to the right or to the left. Since the guidelines were intended to change existing sentencing practices, the Commission decided to write prescriptive guidelines. 3 It established a subcommittee to develop offense rankings, including the sub-categorization of broadly defined statutes. The Commission chose to link the recommendations for confinement to the minimum term rather than the maximum term. Under Pennsylvania s indeterminate sentencing system, the minimum sentence generally sets the parole eligibility date. In the early 1980 s, the average time served in prison was 102% of the minimum term. 4 Consistent with the view of most judges at that time, the Commission viewed the minimum sentence set by the court as the presumptive term of confinement. Invalidation of the Guidelines Another remarkable aspect of these initial guidelines is that they were the only guidelines rejected by the General Assembly. In this case they were rejected for being too lenient and restricting the discretion of judges to impose harsher sentences on violent offenders. Legislators at the time suggested that the guidelines would do nothing to deter crime. The Resolution 5 passed by the House and the Senate recommended the following changes: increase the upper limit of sentencing in each grid; provide judges with more latitude in sentencing where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are found; clarify that the list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not exclusive; eliminate prior guideline proposal relating to treatment of concurrent or consecutive sentencing practices; and increase the severity of sentences for crimes involving serious bodily injury or the likelihood or threat of serious bodily injury. The subsequent version of the guidelines, adopted by the Commission and implemented in 1982 (1st Edition, effective 7/22/1982), reflected a substantial rewriting of the initial guidelines. A 10-point Offense Gravity Score replaced the 12-point Offense Score, with only 10% of cells restricted to non-confinement and jail, and much broader ranges of recommendations. Gone was the list or any guidance relating to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lapsing of prior record, and standards for the imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentences. Adjustments for inchoates, discharge of a firearm and serious bodily injury were eliminated; a deadly weapon enhancement replaced the previous adjustment, and separate aggravated and mitigated ranges were created. On a separate track, the Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Sessoms, 6 which invalidated all guidelines (1st Edition and its Amendments 1 and 2, and 2nd Edition) due to a procedural flaw in rejecting the initial guidelines. The concurrent Resolution had not been signed by the Governor. On the heels of the enactment of drug trafficking mandatories by Congress, and in the absence of sentencing guidelines to address the growing drug problem, the General Assembly passed mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. 7 Shortly thereafter, the 3rd Edition Sentencing Guidelines were adopted by the Commission and submitted to the General Assembly, including expanded guidelines for drug offenses, and became effective in June Appellate Review Notwithstanding the greater discretion provided to courts under these guidelines, the Superior Court enforced both procedural and substantive compliance with the guidelines during the period from In the absence of specific recommendations from the Commission regarding departures from the guidelines, the appellate courts were developing a common law of sentencing to fill the void. However, this heightened review waned following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court s decision in Commonwealth v. Devers, 9 which supported greater deference to the trial court, and a presumption of reasonableness when a judge has been fully informed by a pre-sentence report. For nearly 20 years, the ebb and flow of substantive appellate review of compliance with the guidelines seemed to be linked to the luck of the draw: certain judges and panels of the Superior Court were deferential to the discretion exercised by sentencing judges, and others required strict adherence to the guidelines. If there was any question regarding the status of appellate review of the guidelines, the Supreme Court addressed this issue squarely in 2007 in Commonwealth v. Walls: we reaffirm that the guidelines have no binding effect, create no presumption in sentencing, and do not predominate over other sentencing factors as they 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. 10 On the advisory-to-presumptive continuum, Pennsylvania s guidelines were clearly advisory. Annual Report

36 The concerns raised include the volume of short-min offenders committed to the Department of Corrections and the need to better manage place of confinement decisions, the use of concurrent vs. consecutive sentences, the use of long periods of probation, and the impact of maximum sentences and split sentences on extended periods of parole supervision. Additional topics for more broad consideration are the collection of offender/offense-related information at the pre-trial stage for use at various intercepts in the criminal justice system and the impact of DUI and drug-related offenses and convictions on counties. Summary Sentencing is the lynchpin of the criminal justice system. Sentencing influences and is influenced by events that happen both earlier and later in the chronological progression of a criminal case. Understanding the relationships between those events is crucial if the is to achieve its statutory goals. The Commission s enabling legislation now provides a wide array of mandates, but one of its overarching responsibilities is 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. CS. 2153(a)(12)). Footnotes 1 Kramer, John H. and Jeffrey T. Ulmer Sentencing Guidelines Lessons Learned from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc., pp Pa.B. 43 (October 25, 1980). 3. Kramer, John H. and Jeffrey T. Ulmer Sentencing Guidelines Lessons Learned from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc., pp Ibid., p HR24, PN1177 (Session of 1981) A.2d 775 (Pa, 1987). 7. Kramer, John H. and Jeffrey T. Ulmer Sentencing Guidelines Lessons Learned from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc., pp Kramer, John H. and Jeffrey T. Ulmer Sentencing Guidelines Lessons Learned from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc., pp A.2d 12 (Pa, 1988) A.2d 957 (Pa, 2007). The Commission took the opportunity to convene a Strategic Planning Work Group to take a fresh review of the sentencing guidelines. Numerous revisions and amendments to the guidelines have been made since the Commission s founding. Incremental changes comply with statutory directions to create sentencing enhancements, address new or modified offenses, and incorporate new programs. While it maintains the status quo, it falls short in the ability to progress in new directions that integrate the evolution of fundamental philosophies and innovative research. While the Commission continues to work on its other mandates, the outside review by the SPWG and upcoming review by the three identified subcommittees is ideally timed. It will help with the absorption of risk assessment, resentencing guidelines, and parole guidelines, mesh with JRI-II work, aid in the movement to a more offender-based information system, and incorporate recent research on evidencebased practices. The Commission looks to elevate sustainability and proactively and automatically address statutory mandates. 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 or a non-incarceration sentence is imposed when incarceration is recommended. 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. 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 recent appellate court opinions impacted mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. 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 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 comprised 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 2 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 a variety of 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 2015 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 2015 Sentences There were 135,582 offenses sentenced during 2015 and reported to the Commission. The total number of sentences reported reflects an 8 percent decrease from the total number reported in 2014 (147,347). 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 75,271 non-dui sentences (59%) reported for 2015 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 nonincarceration sentences has increased over time. For example, in 1990, county jail and nonincarceration sentences were almost equal. Sentences 100,000 80,000 Figure A. Number of Non DUI Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, State Prison SIP County Jail Non Incarceration 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Year *Based on all offenses excluding Driving Under the Influence offenses N=30, N=75,271 *State Intermediate Punishment became a sentencing alternative in May N=41, 2010=349, 2011=314, 2012=387, 2013=432, 2014= =432 A similar trend is apparent in the 23,279 sentences for drug offenses. Non-incarceration was the most common sentencing outcome reported for drug offenses in 2015 (65%) (Fig. B) (also, Table 8, next section). State incarceration has hovered between 16% and 19% from 2000 to 2013, and was 11% in Sentences 16,000 Figure B. Number of Drug Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, State Prison SIP County Jail Non incarceration 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 18,399 in 2015 (see Table 11). The number of sentences represents a 5% decrease from 2014 (19,287). Sentences 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Figure C. Driving Under the Influence Sentences: Pennsylvania, Year *Does not include Driving Under the Influence Sentences from Philadelphia Municipal Court N=7, N= 18,399 Misdemeanor offenses accounted for the majority of reported sentences (Fig. D). During 2015, nearly 68% of the 135,582 reported sentences resulted from offenses graded as misdemeanors. It should be noted that M1 offenses (maximum of 5 years) or M2 offenses (maximum of 2 years) are considered felonies in many other jurisdictions. Thirty-two 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% 5% 13% 9% 20% 15% 7% 24% 0% Statutory Grade Murder F1 F2 F3 Unclassified M1 M2 M3 Unclassified *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% *Based on 135,582 sentences F DUI M Annual Report

46 Sentences are most often disposed through a negotiated plea agreement (Fig. E). During 2015, 83% of sentences were disposed in this manner. Another 13% 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, 2015 Non Negotiated Guilty Plea, 13% *Based on 93,077 sentences reporting type of conviction *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Other, 2% Bench Trial, 1% Negotiated Guilty Plea, 83% Jury Trial, 1% 83% While 13% or 11,893 of the sentences imposed in 2015 were to incarceration in state prison, 31% or 29,420 were sentences of incarceration in county jails, and 43% or 39,858 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 9,136 sentences. Figure F. Distribution of Sentences by Type of Sentence: Pennsylvania, 2015 Other RS, 3% State Prison, 13% SIP, <1% Probation, 43% County Jail, 31% *Based on 93,670 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% in recent years (excludes DUI offenses) In 2015, 41% of the 81,145 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, with a slight decline in 2015 for state incarceration sentences. 43% 42% 43% 43% 43% 41% 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) State Prison Figure I. Average Length of Maximum Incarceration Sentences: Pennsylvania, 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 2015, the majority of offenders were white, most were males, and 45% were younger than age 30. Figure J. Distribution of Sentences by Gender of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2015 Female, 23% During 2015, 77% of the offenders (based on 93,670 criminal incidents) were male (Fig. J). Seventyfour percent of the offenders were white, and 25% were black (based on 98,670 criminal incidents), (Fig. K). Male, 77% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 93,670 sentences reporting gender of offender Figure K. Distribution of Sentences by Race/Ethnicity of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2015 Other 1% Black 25% Hispanic 1% White 74% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 93,670 sentences reporting race/ethnicity of offender. 40 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

49 Additionally, nearly 38% 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-eight percent Percent 50% 40% 30% 20% 38% 28% of the offenders were age 30 to 39, based on 93,670 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 93,670 sentences reporting data sufficient to determine age of offender Conformity to Guidelines During 2015, 90% of the 93,559 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, 2015 Aggravated, 6% Procedural, 1% Above, 2% Below, 7% Mitigated, 8% Standard, 75% *Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100% Based on 93,559 sentences for which conformity could be determined. Annual Report

50 Figure N. Conformity to the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, Percent 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Year 89% 91% 90% 90% 89% 89% 89% 90% 86% 86% 84% *Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses not included Based on 93,559 sentences for which conformity could be determined Overall, the most common reason cited for departing either above or below the guidelines was plea or plea agreement. Departures below most frequently referenced recommendations of the prosecution and offender sentenced on other charge(s)-current. Other reasons for departures above the guidelines included recommendations of the prosecution, 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), burglary home/person present, sexual offender registration violations (F), and VUFA (F) (see Table 18). Departure rates above the guidelines were highest for serious offenses such as homicide-inchoate, rape, and voluntary manslaughter (see Table 18). Four counties had double-digit departure rates below the guidelines (Allegheny, Blair, Dauphin, 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 13 (56%) (see Table 20). The departure rate below the guidelines was highest for OGS 11 (37%). The departure rate above the guidelines was highest for OGS 12 (12%). 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 2015, 4,588 offenders were eligible for SIP and 6% of those were sentenced to SIP; 33,642 offenders were eligible for CIP and 22% 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 2015, 39% of the sentences reported indicate fines were assessed, and 18% 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 2015, 301 juvenile offenders were sentenced. (Note: age equals age at the time the offense was committed). Most offenders were age 17 at the date of offense; 75% were age 18 or older when sentenced (see Table 28). Sixteen percent of these offenders were sentenced in Philadelphia County, 10% were in Allegheny County, and 6% were in Luzerne County (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, 2015 County All Offenses Most Serious Offense by Criminal Incident Most Serious Offense by Judicial Proceeding Most Serious Offense by Person Adams 1, Allegheny 17,729 10,216 9,902 7,708 Armstrong Beaver 1,914 1,662 1,335 1,189 Bedford Berks 5,160 3,750 3,077 2,815 Blair 2,539 1,691 1,669 1,106 Bradford Bucks 5,431 4,092 3,787 3,301 Butler 1,587 1,320 1, Cambria 1,865 1,597 1,232 1,093 Cameron Carbon 1, Centre 2,217 1,251 1, Chester 4,086 2,934 2,508 2,327 Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland 2,529 1,949 1,724 1,535 Dauphin 2,251 1,352 1,336 1,014 Delaware 7,651 5,603 5,473 4,644 Elk Erie 2,604 1,973 1,660 1,553 Fayette 3,618 1,630 1,378 1,243 Forest Franklin 1,822 1,564 1,541 1,288 Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna 1,708 1,313 1,275 1,061 Lancaster 5,835 2,954 2,348 2,151 Lawrence Lebanon 3,138 1,582 1,351 1,205 Lehigh 3,664 2,965 2,719 2,274 Luzerne 4,148 3,019 2,320 2, Part III: Data Tables

53 Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 County All Offenses Most Serious Offense by Criminal Incident Most Serious Offense by Judicial Proceeding Most Serious Offense by Person Lycoming 1,942 1,475 1,282 1,161 McKean Mercer Mifflin Monroe 1,354 1, Montgomery 5,695 4,485 4,469 3,468 Montour Northampton 2,842 2,433 2,358 1,939 Northumberland 1, Perry Philadelphia 9,098 4,688 4,323 3,828 Pike Potter Schuylkill 2,036 1,310 1, Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington 1,523 1,154 1, Wayne Westmoreland 4,555 3,002 2,465 2,051 Wyoming York 6,386 4,912 4,168 3,738 Total 135,582 93,670 84,138 71,711 See Defining a Sentence for Reporting (page 36). 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, 2015 Number Less than to 999 1,000 to 1,999 2,000 to 2,999 3,000 to 3,999 4,000 and more Annual Report

54 Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2015 Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines Number Non reason (text) 2,291 Plea (text) 782 Recommendation of the prosecution 769 Multiple current convictions 542 A lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime 285 Judicial discretion (text) 208 Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 166 Other-No reason specified 128 Recommendation of the court staff/psi 118 Open plea 98 No reason stated on guideline form (text) 97 Credit for time served (text) 88 Multiple offenses (text) 66 Offender has been previously incarcerated 58 Multiple victims 53 Drug Court 46 Commonwealth recommendation (text) 39 Recommendation of the defense attorney 38 Mental Health Court 37 DUI Court (text) 36 Offender shows no remorse 32 Seriousness of offense (text) 30 Offender is a danger to society 25 Possession of weapon 22 Offender is a poor candidate for rehabilitation 21 Drug/specialty court (text) 21 Sentence detail provided (text) 20 Concurrent to other offense. (text) 16 Weapon (text) 16 Offender is drug abuser/drug dependent 14 Offender on parole/probation at time of arrest 13 Other-Non-standard reasons provided (text) 12 Offender injured victim 12 Under supervision (text) 12 Prior record (text) 11 Offender has mental/emotional/psychological problems 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, 2015 Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines Number Offender pleaded guilty/nolo contendre 2,150 Recommendation of the prosecution 2,045 Plea (text) 1,856 Offender sentenced on other charge(s)-current 1,488 Guilty plea (text) 987 Other-No reason specified 371 Judge's decision (text) 324 Recommendation of the court staff/psi 194 No reason stated on guideline form (text) 186 Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 179 Recommendation of the defense attorney 152 Interest of justice (text) 151 Other-Non-standard reasons provided (text) 141 Family is supportive of offender 126 Commonwealth recommendation (text) 124 Sentenced on other offense (text) 117 Prior adult record is very old 64 Offender serving sentence for other crime(s)-prior 62 To ensure long period of supervision after incarceration 54 Accepts responsibility (text) 47 Cooperation (text) 40 Sentence details provided (text) 39 Offender shows remorse 38 Keep offender in county jail 33 Offender is drug dependent/needs treatment 32 Waiver Court 29 No prior adult record or minor adult record 28 Treatment (text) 27 Drug Court 26 Concurrent to other offense (text) 25 Non reason (text) 23 Non-violent prior adult record 22 Offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation 21 Crime relatively insignificant or less onerous than usual 20 Offender has mental/emotional/psychological problems 20 Guilt w/o further penalty (text) 20 Offender waived a jury trial 20 Offender is supporting or caring for family/wife/other dependents 18 Mental health issues (text) 18 Old or minor prior adult record (text) 18 Age (text) 15 Offender on bail or probation or parole on other charges 14 To enable restitution to be made 14 Poor physical health (text) 13 Offender is alcohol dependent/needs treatment 12 Weak case (text) 12 Credit for time served (text) 11 Offender is in poor physical health/needs hospitalization 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. Annual Report

56 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 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 <1 < Allegheny 10, < < Armstrong <1-99 < Beaver 1, <1 <1 98 <1 < Bedford Berks 3, < Blair 1, < < Bradford Bucks 4, < < Butler 1, <1 <1 100 <1 < Cambria 1, <1 <1 99 <1 < Cameron Carbon < Centre 1, Chester 2, < < Clarion Clearfield < < Clinton <1 97 < Columbia <1 < Crawford < Cumberland 1, < Dauphin 1, < Delaware 5, Elk < Erie 1, Fayette 1, < < Forest Franklin 1, <1 98 < Fulton Greene < Huntingdon < Indiana < < Jefferson < Juniata Lackawanna 1, Lancaster 2, <1 < Lawrence < < Lebanon 1, < Lehigh 2, < Luzerne 3, <1 < < Part III: Data Tables

57 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 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 <1 96 < Mercer < Mifflin <1 < < Monroe 1, < <1 < Montgomery 4, < < Montour Northampton 2, <1 < Northumberland <1 97 < Perry < Philadelphia 4, Pike <1 < Potter < Schuylkill 1, < Snyder < Somerset <1 < Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga < < Union < Venango Warren Washington 1, <1 < Wayne < Westmoreland 3, <1 < < Wyoming < < York 4, < Total 93, 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=93,670); Gender (N=93,670); Type of Conviction (N=93.077); Age (N=93,670) 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, 2015 Offense Type Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age 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 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 <1 < < Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M 11, < < DUI-M1 6, <1 < < DUI-M1 Minor Occupant <1 < < DUI-M < < Drug-Felony 8, Drug-Misd 14, <1 < < Escape-Felony < < Escape-Misd < Forgery-F <1 < 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

59 Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2015 Offense Type Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age 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 7, <1 < Other Misdemeanor 1 2, < 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 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 93, 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=93,670); Gender (N=93,670); Type of Conviction (N=93,077); Age (N=93,670). 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, 2015 County Total Number Num % State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Adams < Allegheny 10, <1 1, , , Armstrong < Beaver 1, < <1 Bedford Berks 3, <1 1, , Blair 1, Bradford <1 Bucks 4, <1 1, < , Butler 1, < Cambria 1, Cameron Carbon Centre 1, <1 Chester 2, <1 1, <1 Clarion <1 Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford < Cumberland 1, < Dauphin 1, Delaware 5, <1 2, , Elk < Erie 1, Fayette 1, Forest Franklin 1, < Fulton Greene <1 Huntingdon <1 Indiana < Jefferson <1 Juniata <1 Lackawanna 1, <1 Lancaster 2, , Lawrence < Lebanon 1, < <1 Lehigh 2, , Luzerne 3, , <1 52 Part III: Data Tables

61 Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 County Total Number Num % State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Lycoming 1, < McKean Mercer Mifflin < Monroe 1, Montgomery 4, <1 1, < , <1 Montour < Northampton 2, < Northumberland < <1 Perry < <1 Philadelphia 4,688 1, <1 1, , <1 Pike Potter Schuylkill 1, < <1 Snyder < Somerset <1 Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga < Union <1 Venango < Warren < <1 Washington 1, < Wayne Westmoreland 3, < , Wyoming <1 York 4, <1 1, , <1 Total 93,670 11, <1 29, , , ,817 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. Percent of Sentences to County Intermediate Punishment: Pennsylvania, 2015 Percent None 5% to 9% 15% to 19% Less than 5% 10% to 14% 20% or more Annual Report

62 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only**): Pennsylvania, 2015 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 1, < < Butler < Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre Chester < Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford < Cumberland <1 Dauphin Delaware 1, < <1 Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin < Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster 1, Lawrence Lebanon Lehigh <1 Luzerne 1, <1 54 Part III: Data Tables

63 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only**): Pennsylvania, 2015 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 < <1 Mifflin Monroe < Montgomery 1, < < <1 Montour Northampton < <1 Northumberland < <1 Perry Philadelphia 3,757 1, <1 1, , <1 Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington <1 Wayne Westmoreland Wyoming York 1, < <1 Total 28,303 9, , , , 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, 2015 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 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 11, < <1 6, , , <1 DUI-M1 6, , , DUI-M1 Minor Occupant DUI-M Drug-Felony 8,643 2, , , Drug-Misd 14, <1 2, , , Escape-Felony Escape-Misd < < Forgery-F < <1 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, 2015 State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offense Type Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % 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 7, <1 1, , Other Misdemeanor 1 2, < , Rape < Robbery-F1 (SBI) < Robbery-F1 (drug-related) Robbery-F < < <1 Robbery-F3 (w/force) < Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sex. Offender Registry-Fel < < <1 Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory <1 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 93,670 11, <1 29, , , ,817 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, 2015 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 < <1 Bedford Berks 1, < Blair Bradford <1 Bucks 1, < < Butler < Cambria Cameron Carbon Centre <1 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 <1 58 Part III: Data Tables

67 Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 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 Perry Philadelphia 1, < <1 Pike Potter Schuylkill < <1 Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland < Wyoming York 1, < <1 Total 23,279 2, <1 5, , , ,514 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, 2015 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.) <2.5 g < <1 2.5-<10 g <50 g < <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 2, < <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 < <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 3,268 1, , Marijuana plants (7th ed.) Small Amount 1,230 7 < < <1 lb < <1 1-<10 lbs <50 lbs lbs >1000 lbs <10 plants <21 plants <51 plants >=51 plants Subtotal 2, < , MDMA <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <1000 g >1000 g <50 pills <1000 pills Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

69 Table 9. Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2015 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 Manuf-child present Other Drug Offenses Chemical reaction Chem. Reaction-1000 ft/school Ephedrine-to Manuf. Meth Ephed-to Manuf. Meth. (2nd) Illeg.Dumping Waste Possess esters-manuf Subtotal Stat Limit 6 mon 6, < < , Stat Limit 1.5 yr Stat Limit 2.5 yr Stat Limit 3.5 yr Subtotal 7, <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 6, <1 1, , Subtotal 6, <1 1, , Designer Drugs Designer Drugs Subtotal Total 23,279 2, <1 5, , , ,514 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, 2015 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 Bedford Berks Blair < Bradford Bucks < <1 Butler <1 Cambria Cameron Carbon < Centre Chester < Clarion Clearfield Clinton Columbia Crawford Cumberland < Dauphin Delaware 1, Elk Erie Fayette Forest Franklin < <1 Fulton Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Juniata Lackawanna Lancaster < Lawrence < Lebanon < Lehigh Luzerne < Part III: Data Tables

71 Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 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 Montour Northampton Northumberland Perry Philadelphia Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset < Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington < Wayne Westmoreland < Wyoming York 1, < Total 18, <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 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 State Prison Incarceration 100% 80% State Intermediate Punishment 60% 40% County Jail Incarceration 20% County Intermediate Punishment 0% 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense Probation 64 Part III: Data Tables

73 Annual Report

74 Table 12. Place of Confinement by County (2 to Less Than 5 Year Maximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2015 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, 2015 County Total Number Num % State Prison SIP County Jail Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Lycoming McKean Mercer Mifflin Monroe Montgomery < Montour Northampton Northumberland <1 1 < Perry Philadelphia < Pike Potter Schuylkill Snyder Somerset Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Union Venango Warren Washington Wayne Westmoreland < Wyoming York Total 6,803 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, 2015 State Prison SIP County Jail Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Num % Min Max 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 Assault-Simple Assault-Terr Threat 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 DUI-M DUI-M1 Minor Occupant DUI-M Drug-Felony 1,591 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, 2015 Offense Type Total Number Num % State Prison SIP County Jail Min Max Num % Num % Min Max Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl Identity Theft Incest Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Other Felony Other Misdemeanor Other Misdemeanor 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 WMD-Use or Threat Total 6,803 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, 2015 Offense Gravity Score Prior Record Score RFEL REVOC 14 Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number % Incar Min Number ,994 % Incar Min Total 9 Number ,437 % Incar Min Number ,119 % Incar Min Number 1, ,399 % Incar Min Number 1, ,370 % Incar Min Number 7,080 2,193 1,614 1, , ,216 % Incar Min Number 1, ,939 % Incar Min Number 10,590 3,404 2,745 1,987 1,609 3, ,981 % Incar Min Number 4,996 1,513 1, , ,548 % Incar Min Number 13,830 3,428 2,563 1,562 1,184 2, ,189 % Incar Min Total Number 43,990 12,526 10,037 6,620 5,672 11,792 2, ,559 % Incar Min Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. PCS does not assign an OGS for offenses with a penalty of life or death, such as murder 1, murder 2, assault by a life prisoner, or arson as homicide 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, 2015 State Prison County Jail Type (%) Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Possessed Used Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger Assault-Simple Assault-Terr Threat Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person Carjacking Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M DUI-M Drug-Felony Drug-Misd Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Invol Mansl Homicide-Murder 1, Juv. Offender Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl 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) Sexual Assault Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Misd WMD-Use or Threat 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 5 4 Overview: offenders & purpose 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 Offense History Recommended Sentence Length of Sentence 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, 2015 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.) <2.5 g <50 g g Subtotal Meth., PCP 50-<100 g Subtotal Heroin <1 g <10 g Subtotal Marijuana <1 lb <10 lbs Subtotal MDMA <2.5 g Subtotal Other Drug Offenses Stat Limit 1.5 yr Stat Limit 2.5 yr Subtotal Other Narcotics 1-<10 pills (7th ed.) <50 pills (7th ed.) <100 pills (7th ed.) 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, 2015 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 Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Invol Dev Sex Inter Rape Theft-Felony Theft-Misd Subtotal Crimes against Infants Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Rape Subtotal Drug Trafficking Cocaine Heroin 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-with S.B.I Homicide-Vol Mansl Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) VUFA-Felony Subtotal Homicide-Veh while DUI Homicide-By Veh while DUI Subtotal Ignition Interlock Other Misdemeanor Subtotal Impersonate Law Off. Homicide-Murder Subtotal Manuf. Amphetamines Drug-Felony Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

83 Table 16. Mandatory Sentences by Offense Type (Excluding Driving Under the Influence**): Pennsylvania, 2015 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 Off. Ag. Law Enforcement Off Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Subtotal Public Transportation Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Subtotal Repeat Offender Arson-F1 (persons) Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I Homicide-Murder Homicide-Vol Mansl Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Rape Robbery-F1 (SBI) Subtotal Sentences for Sex Offenses Indecent Assault Invol Dev Sex Inter Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos 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, 2015 County Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Adams Allegheny 10, <1 Armstrong <1 4 - Beaver 1, Bedford Berks 3, Blair 1, Bradford <1 Bucks 4, Butler 1, <1 - Cambria 1, <1 Cameron Carbon <1 - Centre 1, <1 Chester 2, <1 Clarion <1 2 <1 Clearfield Clinton Columbia <1 Crawford <1 <1 8 Cumberland 1, Dauphin 1, Delaware 5, Elk <1 Erie 1, <1 Fayette 1, <1 Forest Franklin 1, < Fulton <1-4 Greene <1 4 <1 Huntingdon Indiana <1 <1 - Jefferson Juniata <1 Lackawanna 1, <1 Lancaster 2, Lawrence Lebanon 1, <1 <1 2 Lehigh 2, Luzerne 3, Part III: Data Tables

85 Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County: Pennsylvania, 2015 County Total Number of Sentences Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines (%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Lycoming 1, <1 McKean <1 2 - Mercer Mifflin <1 Monroe 1, Montgomery 4, Montour Northampton 2, <1 1 <1 Northumberland <1 Perry Philadelphia 4, <1 Pike <1 2 <1 1 Potter Schuylkill 1, <1 <1 Snyder <1 <1 Somerset <1 2 - <1 3 Sullivan Susquehanna <1 4 - Tioga <1 <1 <1 Union Venango <1 1 - Warren <1 - - <1 Washington 1, Wayne <1 1 2 Westmoreland 3, Wyoming York 4, <1 Total 93, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 93,559 sentences. 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, 2015 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 5 - Assault-Simple 4, <1 Assault-Simple/Ethnic Intim Assault-Terr Threat 1, <1 BUI Bad Checks <1 3 - 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 11, <1 4 DUI-M1 6, DUI-M1 Minor Occupant DUI-M Drug-Felony 8, <1 Drug-Misd 14, <1 5 <1 Escape-Felony < Escape-Misd Forgery-F <1 8 - 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, 2015 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 7, <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. Offender Registry-Fel Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Stalking/Harrassment Theft-Felony 2, <1 Theft-Misd 7, Theft-Retail Fel 3, <1 Theft-Retail Misd 5, VUFA-Felony 1, <1 32 <1 VUFA-Misd WMD-Use or Threat Total 93, Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 93,559 sentences. 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, 2015 Drug Category Type of Drug Amount Total Number Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines(%) Within: Mitigated Outside: Above Outside: Below Outside: Procedural Cocaine <2 g (7th ed.) <1 2-<5 g (7th ed.) <1 5-<10 g (7th ed.) <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 2, <1 Meth., PCP <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <100 g g >1000 g Subtotal Heroin <1 g 2, <1 1-<10 g <1 10-<50 g <1 50-<100 g g >1000 g Subtotal 3, <1 Marijuana plants (7th ed.) Small Amount 1, <1 lb <10 lbs <50 lbs lbs >1000 lbs <10 plants <21 plants <51 plants >=51 plants Subtotal 2, MDMA <2.5 g <10 g <50 g <1000 g >1000 g <50 pills <1000 pills Subtotal Part III: Data Tables

89 Table 19. Conformity to the Guidelines for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2015 Drug Category Type of Drug Amount Total Number Within: Standard Within: Aggravated Conformity to the Guidelines(%) 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 Ephed-to Manuf. Meth. (2nd) Illeg.Dumping Waste Possess esters-manuf Subtotal Other Drug Offenses Stat Limit 6 mon 6, <1 <1 - Stat Limit 1.5 yr Stat Limit 2.5 yr <1 Stat Limit 3.5 yr Subtotal 7, <1 Other Narcotics <1 g (7th ed.) <10 g (7th ed.) <10 pills (7th ed.) < <50 pills (7th ed.) <1 50-<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 6, <1 10 <1 Subtotal 6, <1 10 <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, 2015 Prior Record Score Offense Gravity 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 ,994 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number ,437 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number ,119 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 1, ,399 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 1, ,370 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 7,080 2,193 1,614 1, , ,216 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Part III: Data Tables

91 Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2015 Prior Record Score Offense Gravity Score RFEL REVOC Total 4 Number 1, ,939 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 10,590 3,404 2,745 1,987 1,609 3, ,981 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 4,996 1,513 1, , ,548 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Number 13,830 3,428 2,563 1,562 1,184 2, ,189 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Total Number 43,990 12,526 10,037 6,620 5,672 11,792 2, ,559 % Within GLs % Outside Above % Outside Below Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. The Commission does not assign an OGS for sentences of death or life such as murder 1, murder 2, assault by life prisoner, or arson as homicide. 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 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. 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 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. 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, 2015 Level 5 State Prison 98% State Prison 96% SIP 4% SIP 2% SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 843 1,675 Level 4 SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 1,702 2,931 Level 3 CIP,5% County Jail,36% State Prison,57% County Jail,35% State Prison,54% SIP,2% CIP, 9% SIP 5% DUI/SIP 4% SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 1,192 7,252 Sentenced 74 5,507 DUI Eligible ,638 Total Eligible 1,739 20,890 CIP, 4% DUI/CIP, 26% State Prison 91% County Jail,61% State Prison,8% SIP,<1% Level 2 SIP 11% SIP CIP Sentenced Eligible 295 7,249 CIP, 10% State Prison 89% County Jail, 86% State Prison,4% SIP, <1% Level 1 SIP CIP Sentenced 4 59 Eligible CIP, 7% State Prison 56% SIP 44% County Jail, 92% 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, 2015 Level 5 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,578 70% State IP 32 1% County Jail % County IP 85 2% Probation 423 8% Other RS 120 2% Total 5, % Level 4 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,559 52% State IP 107 2% County Jail 1,856 27% County IP 356 5% Probation % Other RS 107 2% Total 6, % Level 3 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 3,631 10% State IP 294 1% County Jail 17,300 49% County IP 7,674 22% Probation 5,895 17% Other RS 349 1% Total 35, % Probation County IP 8% 2% County Jail 17% State IP <1% County IP 5% County IP 22% County Jail 27% Probation 12% State IP 2% Probation 17% Other RS 1% Other RS 2% Other RS 2% State Prison 70% State Prison 52% State Prison 10% State IP 1% County Jail 49% Level 2 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 977 3% State IP 103 0% County Jail 8,208 24% County IP 930 3% Probation 23,121 67% Other RS 1,233 4% Total 34, % Other RS 4% Probation 67% State Prison 3% State IP <1% County Jail 24% County IP 3% Level 1 Type of Sentence Number Percent State Prison 37 0% State IP 10 0% County Jail 1,181 10% County IP 91 1% Probation 9,592 80% Other RS 1,008 8% Total 11, % Other RS 8% State IP <1% State Prison <1% County Jail 10% County IP 1% Probation 80% Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 93,559 sentences. 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, 2015 Level 5 OGS Number Percent % % % % 10 1,994 39% 9 1,437 28% % % 6 3 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% 3 0 0% 2 0 0% 1 0 0% Total 5, % Level 4 OGS Number Percent ,145 17% 7 1,433 21% 6 1,564 23% 5 1,703 25% % % 2 0 0% 1 0 0% Total 6, % Level 5 OGS % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% OGS Level 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Level 3 OGS Number Percent % % % % % 9 0 0% % 7 1,746 5% 6 2,803 8% 5 10,031 29% % 3 5,731 16% 2 1,546 4% 1 11,706 33% Total 35, % OGS Level 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 88 Part III: Data Tables

97 Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score: Pennsylvania, 2015 Level 2 OGS Number Percent % % % % % 9 0 0% 8 0 0% 7 0 0% 6 0 0% 5 3,482 10% 4 2,146 6% 3 18,378 53% 2 4,011 12% 1 6,555 19% Total 34, % Level 1 OGS Number Percent % % % % % 9 0 0% 8 0 0% 7 0 0% 6 0 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 0% 3 0 0% 2 4,991 42% 1 6,928 58% Total 11, % OGS OGS Level 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Level 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 93,559 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

98 Table 26. Economic Sanctions and Assessments: Pennsylvania, 2015 Type of Sanction or Assessment Summary Statistics: Based only on offenses for which each of the following was assessed: Number of Offenses % Median Mode Total Fines 39, $602 $300 $100 $23,883,984 Restitution 18, $3,473 $400 $113 $63,832,172 Costs 13, $1,443 $813 $100 $19,264,508 Fees 2,766 3 $330 $150 $50 $911,614 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Based on 100,432 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. Fines and Community Service Recommendations OGS PRS Recommended CS Hours Recommended Fines (@$7.25/hour) Recommended Fines (@$17.40/hour) $1,631 $1,813 $3,915 $4, $2,175 $2,356 $5,220 $5, $1,631 $1,813 $3,915 $4, $725 $906 $1,740 $2, $2,175 $2,356 $5,220 $5, $1,631 $1,813 $3,915 $4, $1,088 $1,269 $2,610 $3, $363 $544 $870 $1, $1,088 $1,269 $2,610 $3, $906 $1,088 $2,175 $2, $725 $906 $1,740 $2, $544 $725 $1,305 $1, $181 $363 $435 $ $1,088 $1,269 $2,610 $3, $906 $1,088 $2,175 $2, $725 $906 $1,740 $2, $544 $725 $1,305 $1, $363 $544 $870 $1, $181 $363 $435 $870 $7.25 was the minimum wage in $17.40 was the median wage in 2015 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 90 Part III: Data Tables

99 Table 27. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2015 State Prison County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offense Type Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % Assault-Agg F2 (BI) Assault-Simple Drug-Felony Homicide-Mur 1, Offender age 15-<18 Homicide-Mur 2, Offender age 15-< Homicide-Murder Other F Other F Other F Other M Other M Other M Other M Robbery-F1 (SBI) Robbery-F Theft-Felony Theft-Misd Total < Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Age is the age at the time the offense is committed. 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 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. Table 28. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Age [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2015 Age at Sentence** State Prison County Jail CIP Probation Other RS Offender Age* (yrs.) Total Number Num 18+ % Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % < Total < Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Age is the age at the time the offense is committed. 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 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

100 Table 29. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2015 State Prison County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % 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

101 Table 29. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2015 State Prison County Jail CIP Probation Other RS County Total Number Num % Min Max Num % Min Max Num % Length of RIP Num % Length of Probation Num % 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 < Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. Time in months. Age is the age at the time the offense is committed. 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 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

102 Table 30. Completed or Inchoate Offenses by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2015 Completed Attempted Conspired Solicited Offense Type Total Number Num % Num % Num % Num % Arson-F1 (persons) Arson-F2 (property) Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) < Assault-Agg F2 (BI) < <1 Assault-Agg by Veh (F3) Assault-Reck Endanger Assault-Simple 4,507 4, <1 41 <1 4 <1 Assault-Simple/Ethnic Intim Assault-Terr Threat 1,057 1, <1 - - BUI Bad Checks <1 3 <1 - - Burg-F1/House-No Person Burg-F1/House-Person <1 Burg-F1/No House-Person Burglary-F <1 Carjacking Catastrophe Corrupting Minor <1 1 <1 - - Crim Mischief-F Crim Trespass-F Crim Trespass-F DUI-M 11,351 11, DUI-M1 6,561 6, DUI-M1 Minor Occupant DUI-M Drug-Felony 8,643 7, < <1 Drug-Misd 14,636 14, <1 84 <1 3 <1 Escape-Felony <1 - - Escape-Misd <1 - - 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

103 Table 30. Completed or Inchoate Offenses by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2015 Completed Attempted Conspired Solicited Offense Type Total Number Num % Num % Num % 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 <1 - - Incest Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter <1 9 6 Kidnapping Obscene Materials-Fel Obscene Materials-Misd Other Felony 2,466 2, < <1 Other Misdemeanor 7,834 7, <1 41 <1 6 <1 Other Misdemeanor 1 2,826 2, < <1 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 <1 1 <1 Stalking/Harrassment <1 - - Theft-Felony 2,700 2, < Theft-Misd 7,653 7, <1 Theft-Retail Fel 3,556 3, < <1 Theft-Retail Misd 5,293 4, < VUFA-Felony 1,605 1, <1 - - VUFA-Misd <1 2 <1 - - WMD-Use or Threat Total 93,670 90, <1 2, <1 Based on Most Serious Offense in Criminal Incident. 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

104 Table 31. Megan's Law Offenses by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2015 Ordered Hearing SVP Walsh Act Tier Offense Type Total Number Num % Num % Num % Tier I Corrupting Minor Indecent Assault Other Misdemeanor Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sexual Assault Tier II Indecent Assault Other Felony Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sexual Assault-Statutory Tier III Corrupting Minor Indecent Assault Indecent Assault-Agg Invol Dev Sex Inter Kidnapping Other Felony Other Misdemeanor Rape Sex. Abuse /Children-Photos Sexual Assault Sexual Assault-Statutory Total Effective on or after December 20, Based on most serious Walsh Act offenses: 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. Tier I Number of Megan's Law Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2015 Tier II Number of Megan's Law Offenses: Pennsylvania, Total Evalation Ordered Hearing Held SVP Status Total Evalation Ordered Hearing Held SVP Status Tier III Number of Megan's Law Offenses: Pennsylvania, Part III: Data Tables Total Evalation Ordered Hearing Held SVP Status

105 APPENDICES Annual Report

106 APPENDIX A: NEW OFFENSE LISTING Title Section Offense Prior Statutory Grade New Statutory Grade Penalty Provision (7th Edition Amendment 3} OGS Assignment Bill Number 2015/16 Session Act Effective Date Harassment HB 229 Act Sep 8, 2015 (a.1) cyber harassment of a child new M3 1 [omnibus] Impersonating notary public/holder of prof./occp. license (a) impersonate dr. of medicine, provides medical advice/treatment new M1 3 [omnibus] SB 485 Act Aug 25, Cruelty to animals HB 164 Act Sep 8, 2015 (h.2) possession of animal fighting paraphernalia new M3 1 [omnibus] Municipal housing code avoidance Act Sep 8, 2015 repealed M1 3 M P.S Failure to comply with code requirement SB330 Act Sep 8, 2015 (a) second conviction for same property M2 2 [omnibus] (a) three or more convictions for same property M1 3 [omnibus] Issuance and content of driver's license SB 42 Act Sep 8, 2015 (a.1)(4) falsely represents as a veteran on license application new M3 see 18 Pa.C.S. 4904(b) 98 Appendices

107 APPENDIX B: CASE LAW HIGHLIGHTS 2015 (Source: Lexis Nexis Headnotes) Commonwealth v. Veon, 109 A.3d 754 (2/6/2015, PA Super) (Restitution) The term reimbursement is not defined in 18 Pa.C.S. 1106, but as evinced by the broadened 1106, the General Assembly not only expressed an increased focus on the importance of mandatory restitution, it believed that criminal offenders should both provide restitution to the victim directly, and to entities incurring expenses on the victim s behalf. The dual purposes of restitution is rehabilitation and deterrence. The main purpose behind the statute is rehabilitation of the offender by impressing upon him that this criminal conduct caused the victim s loss or personal injury and that it is his responsibility to repair the loss or injury as far as possible, and that compensation to the victim is only secondary. Furthermore, the goals of restitution include the hope that the criminal will be deterred from repeating the conduct and encouraged to live in a responsible way. Allowing those entities that directly and indirectly compensate the victim of a crime to be eligible for restitution would be consistent with the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence, as well as consistent with the goal to be obtained by the amended statute. A court must be guided by the following when computing restitution: Although restitution does not seek, by its essential nature, the compensation of the victim, the dollar value of the injury suffered by the victim as a result of the crime assists the court in calculating the appropriate amount of restitution. A restitution award must not exceed the victim s losses. A sentencing court must consider the victim s injuries, the victim s request as presented by the district attorney and such other matters as the court deems appropriate. The court must also ensure that the record contains the factual basis for the appropriate amount of restitution. In that way, the record will support the sentence. An award of restitution is a sentence. Prior to 1995, the statutory language of 18 Pa.C.S did not include Commonwealth entities under the definition of victim. Subsequently, the legislature amended 1106 in 1995 and again in 1998, broadening the class of entities eligible to receive restitution to include the Crime Victim s Compensation Board, other government agencies, and insurance companies. 1106(c)(1)(ii)(A-D). While the legislature broadened the definition of those eligible for restitution to include government agencies, the language utilized in the amendments did not include all government agencies. The Commonwealth can be a victim under 18 Pa.C.S The General Assembly intended to have the restitution statute serve as deterrence for criminals. It would therefore be contrary to the statute s purpose and the General Assembly s intent - not to mention common sense - to have a defendant directly steal from the Commonwealth and not be liable for restitution. Limiting restitution sentences to instances where the Commonwealth only reimburses a third party victim would otherwise encourage criminals to steal from the Commonwealth. To hold otherwise would place form over substance and ignore the realities and purpose of the statute. Therefore, the Commonwealth is a victim to which an order of restitution can be paid when the Commonwealth is the direct victim of a crime. Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 110 A.3d 146 (2/17/2015, PA) (County Intermediate Punishment) 42 Pa.C.S s seven alternatives are available to a sentencing court unless a mandatory minimum sentence applies; however, even if such sentence applies, the court may still impose county intermediate punishment if it is specifically authorized by 42 Pa.C.S Pa.C.S s general provision requires the sentencing court to specify the length of the term of punishment and sets parameters for such term. 9763(a). It then lists permissible conditions the court may attach upon the defendant as it deems necessary, 9763(b), requires persons being sentenced for certain Pennsylvania Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) violations to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and participate in treatment in conjunction with their county intermediate punishment, 9763(c), and includes a provision concerning sentencing following violation of the conditions in subsection (b), 9763(d). Thus, while 9763 apparently authorizes county intermediate punishment for offenses under the Vehicle Code even if there is a mandatory minimum sentence, it does not address whether the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed when the sentencing guidelines allow for intermediate punishment for possession with intent to distribute. Accordingly, the state s highest court declines to find 9763 authorizes deviation from 7508 s mandatory minimum sentence provision. Annual Report

108 (Mandatory) The plain language of 18 Pa.C.S. 7508(c) curtails a sentencing court s option to impose a lesser sentence once the mandatory minimum sentence is found applicable; furthermore, this subsection specifically provides the sentencing guidelines do not supersede a mandatory minimum sentence. Even without such provision, the guidelines (which are just that--guidelines) could never supersede or override a statute. Allowing the imposition of county intermediate punishment for persons subject to 7508 would render subsection (c) of that statute meaningless. (RRRI) Under the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act (Act), a defendant initially sentenced to a minimum state sentence, if determined by the sentencing court to be eligible, is released on parole before the minimum sentence s expiration. The Act applies to defendants sentenced to mandatory minimum terms required by the drug trafficking sentencing provisions of 18 Pa.C.S and When the Pennsylvania General Assembly drafted the Act, it simultaneously amended certain Pennsylvania Sentencing Code (Sentencing Code) provisions, thereby evincing its awareness of the Act s effect on mandatory minimum sentences and its desire that the Act work in conformity with existing sentencing statutes. No such intent is manifest in the Sentencing Code with respect to 7508 itself. An Act minimum sentence is imposed in addition to a minimum sentence, not instead of the minimum sentence. Thus, an offender still receives a mandatory minimum sentence along with an RRRI Act minimum sentence. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 111 A.3d 1187 (2/17/2015, PA Super) (Merger) instances where the Pennsylvania legislature has intended that crimes merge for sentencing purposes, it has stated so explicitly. Under 18 Pa.C.S. 906, a person may not be convicted of more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime. Under 18 Pa.C.S. 3502(d), a person may not be sentenced both for burglary and for the offense which it was his intent to commit after the burglarious entry or for an attempt to commit that offense, unless the additional offense constitutes a felony of the first or second degree. The appellate court finds the absence of such express language in 18 Pa.C.S (1995) telling. Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (3/5/2015, PA Super) (Constitutionality ) The United States Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. VIII, does not present a bar to the admission of victim impact evidence. Victim impact evidence is designed to show each victim s uniqueness as a human being. Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question. However, as 42 Pa.C.S makes clear, before victim impact statements may be admitted at a sentencing hearing, there first must be an identifiable victim of the crime for which the defendant was convicted. A court shall not order the exclusion of any victim of the offense. Indeed, where a defendant is convicted of a crime against a person, that person is considered by the law to have been a victim of the defendant s crimes. (Discretionary Aspects) The utilization of a sentencing enhancement concerns the trial court s application of the sentencing guidelines, and, therefore, implicates the discretionary aspects of a defendant s sentence. In Commonwealth v. Greene, the Pennsylvania Superior Court explains an appellant s burden when raising such a challenge, as follows: Unlike a challenge to the legality of a sentence, there is no absolute right to direct appellate review of a discretionary sentencing claim. Rather, a party who desires to raise such matters must petition this court for permission to appeal and demonstrate that there is a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate. In fulfilling that requirement, the party seeking to appeal must include in his or her brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon in support of the petition for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). In that statement, the appellant must demonstrate that there exists a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code. (Enhancement) As with 18 Pa.C.S. 6317, the school zone enhancement plainly seeks to protect our children from the evils of illegal drug dealing on school grounds. However, a court may not ignore the unambiguous terms used in the enhancement so as to expand the provision to include those areas or locations that are not fairly encompassed by those terms. The enhancement applies only when the offense occurs within 250 feet of a public or private elementary or secondary school. 204 Pa. Code (b)(2). 100 Appendices

109 Pursuant to 204 Pa. Code (b)(2), the school zone enhancement compels a trial court to consider heightened guideline ranges when the court determines that the offender manufactured, delivered or possessed with intent to deliver a controlled substance within 250 feet of the real property on which is located a public or private elementary or secondary school. Similarly, the youth enhancement requires the trial court to consider elevated guideline ranges in sentencing an individual when the court determines that the offender distributed a controlled substance to a person or persons under the age of (b)(1). The enhancements only require the trial court to consider a certain range of sentences. The enhancements do not bind the trial court to impose any particular sentence, nor do they compel the court to sentence within the specified range. Indeed, it is well-settled that the sentencing guidelines ultimately are only advisory. The youth enhancement requires a trial court to consider elevated sentencing guideline ranges when the court determines that the offender distributed a controlled substance to a person or persons under the age of Pa. Code (b) (1). The Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that an accomplice is not an offender in that limited circumstance. (Guidelines) The parameters of Alleyne are limited to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, for example, where a legislature has prescribed a mandatory baseline sentence that a trial court must apply if certain conditions are met. By their very character, sentencing enhancements do not share the attributes of a mandatory minimum sentence that the United States Supreme Court held to be elements of the offense that must be submitted to a jury. The enhancements do not bind a trial court to any particular sentencing floor, nor do they compel a trial court in any given case to impose a sentence higher than the court believes is warranted. They require only that a court consider a higher range of possible minimum sentences. Even then, the trial court need not sentence within that range; the court only must consider it. (Mandatory) In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court has held that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. In Alleyne, the Court overruled Harris v. United States, in which the Court had reached the opposite conclusion, explaining that there is no constitutional distinction between judicial fact-finding which raises the minimum sentence and that which raises the maximum sentence. It is impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentencing range from the penalty affixed to the crime. Indeed, criminal statutes have long specified both the floor and ceiling of sentence ranges, which is evidence that both define the legally prescribed penalty. This historical practice allowed those who violated the law to know, ex ante, the contours of the penalty that the legislature affixed to the crime, and comports with the obvious truth that the floor of a mandatory range is as relevant to wrongdoers as the ceiling. A fact that increases a sentencing floor, thus, forms an essential ingredient of the offense. Is impossible to dispute that facts increasing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the punishment. Elevating the low-end of a sentencing range heightens the loss of liberty associated with the crime: the defendant s expected punishment has increased as a result of the narrowed range and the prosecution is empowered, by invoking the mandatory minimum, to require the judge to impose a higher punishment than he might wish. Why else would Congress link an increased mandatory minimum to a particular aggravating fact other than to heighten the consequences for that behavior. That reality demonstrates that the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which must be submitted to the jury. Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (3/11/2015, PA Super) (Concurrent/ Consecutive) A sentencing court generally has discretion to impose multiple sentences concurrently or consecutively, and a challenge to the exercise of that discretion does not ordinarily raise a substantial question. A defendant who fails to raise a substantial question is not entitled to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of sentence, even if raised in a post-sentence motion. Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (3/17/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) A post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc may toll the appeal period, but only if two conditions are met. First, within 30 days of imposition of sentence, a defendant must request the trial court to consider a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc. The request for nunc pro tunc relief is separate and distinct from the merits of the underlying post-sentence motion. Second, the trial court must expressly permit the filing of a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, also within 30 days Annual Report

110 of imposition of sentence. If the trial court does not expressly grant nunc pro tunc relief, the time for filing an appeal is neither tolled nor extended. Moreover, the trial court s resolution of the merits of a late post-sentence motion is no substitute for an order expressly granting nunc pro tunc relief. In cases where no post-sentence motions (or Commonwealth s motions to modify sentence) are filed, a defendant must file an appeal within 30 days of imposition of sentence in open court. Pa. R. Crim. P. 720(A)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(c)(3). If a defendant files a timely post-sentence motion, the appeal period does not begin to run until the motion is decided. Pa. R. Crim. P. 720(A)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). A defendant must generally file a post-sentence motion within ten days of imposition of sentence. Pa. R. Crim. P. 720(A)(1). An untimely post-sentence motion does not toll the appeal period. When considering whether a trial court has expressly granted nunc pro tunc relief, tolling the time for filing an appeal, cases construing the term under Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3), allowing a trial court to expressly grant reconsideration after the filing of an appeal, with respect to the necessity of a timely order expressly granting reconsideration, the establishment of a briefing schedule, hearing date, or issuance of a rule to show cause does not suffice. When determining whether a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc tolls the appeal period, merely designating a motion as post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc is not enough. Rather, the moving defendant must ask for nunc pro tunc relief and provide reasons to warrant it. Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (3/20/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) Generally, a bald excessiveness of sentence claim does not raise a substantial question. However, an excessiveness claim in conjunction with an assertion that the court did not adequately consider a mitigating factor may present a substantial question. To adequately preserve a discretionary sentencing claim, the defendant must present the issue in either a postsentence motion, or raise the claim during the sentencing proceedings. In the non-anders context, the defendant must preserve the issue in a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement and a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement. Where counsel files an Anders brief, appellate courts have reviewed the matter even absent a separate Rule 2119(f) statement. Hence, a counsel s failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement does not preclude review of whether an appellant s issue is frivolous. (Guidelines) A first-degree felony robbery adjudication or conviction is considered a four-point offense. 204 Pa. Code 303.7, Four-point juvenile offenses lapse if committed before the individual s fourteenth birthday. 204 Pa. Code (PSI) When a trial court considers a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court adequately considered relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. Commonwealth v. Devries, 112 A.3d 663 (3/20/2015, PA Super) (Enhancement) The language of both 204 Pa. Code 303(a)(3)(ix) and 18 Pa.C.S. 5121(d)(1)(ii) is clear. To be convicted of escape as a felony, one must employ any of the four stated factors, including a deadly weapon. The possession of a deadly weapon is, therefore, an element of the crime. Section 303(a)(3)(ix) forbids the application of the deadly weapon enhancement to any crime of which possession of a deadly weapon is an element. Accordingly, the deadly weapon enhancement is not instantly applicable to escape as a felony of the third degree. Commonwealth v. Cristina, 114 A.3d 419 (4/14/2015, PA Super) (Juvenile offenders) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court s Cunningham decision can only be read for the propositions that 1) the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama did not, itself, give retroactive effect to the new rule it announced regarding life imprisonment of juveniles, and 2) Miller is not otherwise retroactive under the first Teague v. Lane exception. Whether Miller is retroactive under the second Teague exception, or some other theory, has not yet been addressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 102 Appendices

111 Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (4/20/2015, PA Super) (Constitutionality ) 18 U.S.C.S. 7508(a) cannot be constitutionally applied in light of Alleyne, or it would result in an illegal sentence. Section 7508(b), which permits the trial court to find the necessary elements by a preponderance of the evidence, is not severable from the rest of the statute. Stipulating to the drug s weight, in effect, allows a trial court to impose a mandatory minimum outside the statutory framework, where such procedures are solely within the province of the factfinder. As a result, 7508 is deemed unconstitutional and any mandatory minimum imposed under 7508 is illegal. (Constitutionality ) It is manifestly the province of the General Assembly to determine what new procedures must be created in order to impose mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania following Alleyne. Courts cannot do so. The Alleyne majority reasoned that while Harris limited Apprendi to facts increasing the statutory maximum, the principle applied in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum. This is because it is impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentencing range from the penalty affixed to the crime, and it is impossible to dispute that facts increasing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the punishment. Thus, this reality demonstrates that the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which must be submitted to the jury. even where a statute specifically states that its provisions shall not be an element of the crime, the sentencing factor or factual predicate at issue still has to be determined by the factfinder, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Mandatory) The United States Supreme Court has held that any fact that triggers an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is necessarily an element of the offense. The Supreme Court reasoned that the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, and consequently, the Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VI, requires that every element of the crime, including any fact that triggers the mandatory minimum, must be alleged in the charging document, submitted to a jury, and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Giannantonio, 114 A.3d 429 (4/20/2015, PA Super) (Megan s Law/SORNA) Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S , expanded the list of offenses requiring registration, and grouped offenders into one of three Tiers, depending on the severity of the offense. 42 Pa.C.S (a)-(d). The legislation changed the mandatory registration periods for adults to 15 years, 25 years, and lifetime, depending upon the offense and Tier classification. 42 Pa.C.S (a). Offenders classified in Tier I are required to register in person annually with the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), (e)(1), and provide the information listed in 42 Pa.C.S (b). When it became effective, SORNA applied to individuals already required to register, and anyone who was already subject to registration was to receive credit for any time registered with the PSP prior to December 20, Pa.C.S (4). The prior registration requirements of Megan s Law III expired when SORNA became effective on December 20, The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S , in 2011 and the governor signed it into law on December 20, The passage of SORNA brought Pennsylvania into compliance with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C.S , and provides a means for the public and law enforcement officials to obtain information on sex offenders. SORNA includes legislative findings and a declaration of policy. It explains that the Commonwealth s laws regarding registration of sexual offenders need to be strengthened. 42 Pa.C.S (a)(2). The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth to increase its regulation of sexual offenders in a manner which is nonpunitive but offers an increased measure of protection to the citizens of the Commonwealth. The same principles behind the registration requirements for sexual offenders under Megan s Law apply to those subject to the Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S Namely, to effectuate, through remedial legislation, the nonpunitive goal of public safety. 42 Pa.C.S. 9791(a) provides the legislative findings and declaration of policy behind the registration of sexual offenders. In fact, one of the main purposes behind SORNA is to fortify the registration provisions applicable to such offenders. 42 Pa.C.S provides the purpose of registration of sexual offenders under SORNA. Annual Report

112 Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (4/21/2015, PA Super) (Guidelines) In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant. 42 Pa.C.S. 9721(b). (Merger) 42 Pa.C.S states that no crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless the crimes arise from a single criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the other offense. Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (4/24/2015, PA) (Credit) The different claims a prisoner may raise regarding credit for time served and the mechanisms for raising such claims are: If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau s computation. If, on the other hand, the alleged error is thought to be attributable to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed. It is only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial court s alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence is deemed cognizable as a due process claim in proceedings under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S et seq. Commonwealth v. Schultz, 116 A.3d 1116 (5/4/2015, PA Super) (State Intermediate Punishment) 61 Pa.C.S. 4105(a) requires the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to establish and administer a drug offender treatment program as a state intermediate punishment (SIP). 61 Pa.C.S. 4105(a). The DOC is also statutorily tasked with developing written guidelines for participant selection criteria and the establishment of drug offender treatment program selection committees within each diagnostic and classification center of the department and shall address suspensions and expulsions from the drug offender treatment program. 61 Pa.C.S Pa.C.S. 4105(f)(1) vests solely in the DOC the decision of expelling a participant from the drug offender treatment program at any time in accordance with guidelines established by the department. 61 Pa.C.S. 4105(f)(1). The DOC is required to promptly notify the court, the defendant, the attorney for the Commonwealth and the of the expulsion of a participant from the drug offender treatment program and the reason for such expulsion. 61 Pa.C.S. 4105(f)(2). The trial court is required to conduct a revocation hearing under 61 Pa.C.S. 4105(f)(3) and determine whether the participant was expelled from or failed to complete the program. 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b). The governing statutes state that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is charged with promulgating regulations regarding the administration of the state intermediate punishment (SIP) program. 61 Pa.C.S This includes regulations governing a participant s expulsion from the program. 61 Pa.C.S The Pennsylvania Legislature enacted state intermediate punishment (SIP) in November The SIP is a two-year program designed to benefit persons with drug and alcohol problems. In order to be eligible for the SIP program, a defendant cannot have a history of present or past violent behavior and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections must determine that the defendant is in need of drug and alcohol treatment The plain text of 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b), coupled with the Pennsylvania General Assembly s use of past tense, reveal that when addressing a revocation under 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b) the trial court is limited to the question of whether the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections expelled the defendant from the program, or whether the defendant failed to complete the same. 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b). The trial court is not required, or even legally permitted, to act in an appellate capacity and decide for itself de novo whether an appellant actually violated the terms of the state intermediate punishment program. Had the General Assembly wished for the trial court to conduct such an inquiry, it would have used different language in the text of 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b), directing or authorizing it to do so. Conversely, 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b) in its present form only requires the Commonwealth to prove the fact of expulsion or noncompletion. Once the trial court finds this fact, it is required to revoke under 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b). 42 Pa.C.S. 9774(b). 104 Appendices

113 Commonwealth v. Wright, 116 A.3d 133 (5/8/2015, PA Super) (Revocation) A sentence for a violation of the terms of probation can be imposed after the expiration of the probationary period if the revocation is based on a violation which occurred within the probationary period. However, in that circumstance, the probation must be revoked and the sentence must be imposed within a reasonable time after the expiration of the probationary period. When a sentence is imposed after the expiration of a probationary period, based upon a violation which occurred within the period, the probation must be revoked and the sentence imposed within a reasonable time after the expiration of that period. Even though there is no presumptive period in which a defendant s probation must be revoked, revocation hearings must be held with reasonable promptness after a probation officer is chargeable with knowing that probation has been violated. In cases where probation revocation hearings are not held until after the expiration of the probationary term, a certain amount of prejudice necessarily follows from the fact of the expiration of that probation. In an appeal from a sentence imposed after the court has revoked probation, an appellate court can review the validity of the revocation proceedings, the legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. In a revocation hearing the Commonwealth has the obligation of establishing its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commonwealth has the burden of proof in a probation revocation setting. Thus, it has to establish that a defendant is, inter alia, a probation absconder. Under Ortega, the probationary term is extended only by the period of delinquency. The language a hearing held as speedily as possible in Pa. R. Crim. P. 708(B) has been interpreted as requiring a probation violation hearing within a reasonable time. In determining whether a violation of probation hearing is held within a reasonable period, courts examine the length of the delay; the reasons for the delay; and the prejudice resulting to the defendant from the delay. When a violation of probation (VOP) occurs within the probationary period, but the VOP hearing occurs after probation expires, probation can be revoked if the VOP hearing is held within a reasonable period. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (5/29/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. An appellant making an excessiveness claim raises a substantial question when he sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process. Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle a petitioner to review as of right. Before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania can address such a discretionary challenge, an appellant must comply with the following requirements: An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke the Court s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. Ordinarily, a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider or accord proper weight to a specific sentencing factor does not raise a substantial question. There is ample precedent to support a determination that a claim that the trial court failed to consider an appellant s rehabilitative needs fails to raise a substantial question. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for its review. However, prior decisions from the Court involving whether a substantial question has been raised by claims that the sentencing court failed to consider or failed to adequately consider sentencing factors has been less than a model of clarity and consistency. In Commonwealth v. Dodge, this Court determined an appellant s claim that the sentencing court disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence presented a substantial question. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that an excessive sentence claim, in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors, raises a substantial question. Additionally: In determining whether a substantial question exists, the Court does not examine the merits of whether the sentence is actually excessive. Rather, the Court Annual Report

114 looks to whether the appellant has forwarded a plausible argument that the sentence, when it is within the guideline ranges, is clearly unreasonable. Concomitantly, the substantial question determination does not require the court to decide the merits of whether the sentence is clearly unreasonable. To make it clear, a defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question. (Concurrent/ Consecutive) A court s exercise of discretion in imposing a sentence concurrently or consecutively does not ordinarily raise a substantial question. Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment. (Guidelines) When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider the factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S. 9721(b), that is, the protection of the public, gravity of offense in relation to impact on victim and community, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant. And, of course, the court must consider the sentencing guidelines. Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415 (6/8/2015, PA Super) (Mandatory) In a fairly recent decision, 42 Pa.C.S has been found unconstitutional, therefore rendering illegal a sentence formulated thereunder. Section 9712 violates the United States Supreme Court s decision in Alleyne, which requires that any facts leading to an increase in mandatory minimum sentence must be presented to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (6/9/2015, PA Super) (Mandatory) In Alleyne, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment requires that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases a mandatory minimum sentence for an offense must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Importantly, Alleyne did not overturn prior precedent that prior convictions are sentencing factors and not elements of offenses. 42 Pa.C.S. 9714(a)(1) increases mandatory minimum sentences based on prior convictions. Accordingly, this section is not unconstitutional under Alleyne. The mandatory sentence provision in 42 Pa.C.S does not implicate Alleyne. Section does not require proof of any additional elements beyond those already required to convict a defendant of assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree under 18 Pa.C.S (a). Nor does follow the statutory scheme that allowed a trial court to apply a mandatory minimum sentence if the Commonwealth established the triggering fact for the mandatory minimum by a preponderance of the evidence, which the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found unconstitutional under Alleyne. Instead, n simply describes the legislatively-required sentence for an offender convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer pursuant to (a). Because it does not require proof of facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence, and does not follow the statutory construction that allowed trial courts to find such facts by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing, is not unconstitutional under Alleyne or its Pennsylvania progeny. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (6/15/2015, PA) (Constitutionality) Numerous provisions of 18 Pa.C.S are unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court s decision in Alleyne. After Alleyne, these aspects of the statute - that the provisions are declared not to be elements of the offense, that notice is not required prior to conviction, that factfinding is conducted at sentencing, that the sentencing court performs factfinding, that the applicable standard is preponderance of the evidence, and that the Commonwealth has the right to appeal where the imposed sentence was found to be in violation of the statute - are now infirm. However, the other provisions - specifying the proximity of the drug transaction to a school, and requiring the age of the offender to be over 18 - do not offend the Supreme Court s mandate in Alleyne. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. VI, provides that an accused has the right to trial by an impartial jury. The Constitution mandates that a criminal conviction must rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime in question beyond a reasonable doubt. However, judges have been able to find sentencing factors at post-conviction hearings without running afoul of the jury-trial guarantee. Thus, legislatures were able to differentiate between elements of a crime and sentencing factors in drafting criminal 106 Appendices

115 codes. However, the United States Supreme Court held that any fact that increases a defendant s sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum is an element for the jury, regardless of the legislature s designation. Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing a mandatory minimum. (Double Jeopardy) As Alleyne has rendered factfinding for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S to be elements of a new offense and, thus, a determination for the jury, the Commonwealth s right to appeal that fact finding granted by 6317(d) raises serious double jeopardy concerns. (Mandatory) 18 Pa.C.S. 6317(b), placing in the hands of the sentencing court a factual determination regarding application of 6317, is unconstitutional and must be severed from the statute. This provision is inconsistent with Alleyne s dictate that a fact which may increase a penalty must be submitted to a jury, and evinces an intent on the part of the legislature to make mandatory minimum sentencing independent of a charged offense. As a general overarching matter, based upon review of 18 Pa.C.S. 6317, the General Assembly has unambiguously expressed its intent regarding the nature of this mandatory minimum sentencing statute: it is a sentencing statute - the provisions of the statute are not to constitute elements of an offense, notice of its application need not be provided prior to sentencing, and factual determinations triggering its application are to be determined at sentencing. Yet, virtually every provision of 6317 enacted by the legislature to effectuate this intent runs afoul of the notice, jury trial, burden of proof, and post-trial rights of the accused after Alleyne. These provisions are elaborate, express, and detailed, and are no mere add-ons, but, rather, are prominent and central features of the statute. The unoffending provisions of the statute - the proximity and age requirements - standing alone, are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S By operation of Alleyne, 6317 has been stripped of all the features that allow it to function as a sentencing statute. Foundationally, the General Assembly was clear that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. 6317(b) were not intended to constitute an element of a crime, and, thus, part of an offense. Under Alleyne s mandate, the mandatory minimum sentencing provision found in 6317, together with the core crime, is deemed to be an aggravated offense of drug trafficking with the required fact constituting an element of the offense. Thus, Alleyne transforms the proximity sentencing factor of 6317 into exactly what the General Assembly expressly did not intend - a proximity requirement constituting an element of a new aggravated offense. In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court extended its Apprendi line of cases, overturned its prior decisions in Harris and McMillan, and concluded that, when a factual determination is necessary for the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, the facts must be considered an element of a new, distinct aggravated offense. Moreover, as an element of the offense, the factual determination must be specifically alleged in the charging document, and the defendant has a right to have that fact determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Factfinding which increases a statutory minimum is distinct from factfinding used to guide judicial discretion in selecting a punishment within limits fixed by law. The decision did not impact the broad discretion of judges to select a sentence within the range authorized by law. The distinction between facts that increase the statutory maximum and the facts that increase only the mandatory minimum is untenable in light of the decision in Apprendi and the Sixth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. VI. The facts increasing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the punishment, and, therefore, the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which must be submitted to the jury. Defining facts that increase a mandatory statutory minimum to be part of the substantive offense enables the defendant to predict the legally applicable penalty from the face of the indictment and preserves the historic role of the jury as an intermediary between the State and criminal defendants. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is constrained to conclude that the United States Supreme Court s decision in Alleyne renders 18 Pa.C.S unconstitutional and, further, that, in light of clear legislative intent, severance of the violative provisions from the statute is not permissible. Because of the significant provisions found to violate the Constitution, which clearly express the intent of the legislature that 18 Pa.C.S is a mandatory minimum sentencing statute, and not a substantive offense, the remaining unoffending provisions of 6317 are incapable of being severed, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will not judicially usurp the legislative function and rewrite 6317 or create a substantive offense which the General Assembly clearly did not desire. Given Alleyne s designation of a new aggravated offense, 18 Pa.C.S. 6317(b) s mandate that the applicability of this section shall be determined at sentencing is now void. The statute not only mandates that the sentencing court shall determine applicability of the mandatory minimum, but that it will do so upon evidence offered both at trial and at sentencing, and by a preponderance of the evidence standard, all of which violate Alleyne s requirement that such factfinding is to be treated as an element of a new aggravated offense, determined by a jury, and by a reasonable doubt standard. Annual Report

116 In Alleyne decision, the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. VI, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt any facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence. It is beyond the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania s province to, in essence, rewrite 18 Pa.C.S to transform its sentencing commands, whether by utilizing special verdicts or otherwise, into a new substantive offense, contrary to the express legislative intent to the contrary. Thus, the unoffending portions of the statute, standing alone, without a wholesale rewriting, are incomplete and incapable of being vindicated in accord with the legislature s intent. 1 Pa.C.S Section 6317 of the Crimes Code, entitled Drug-Free School Zones is a statutory provision first enacted in 1997, which sets forth a mandatory minimum sentence of two years total confinement if delivery of, or possession with intent to deliver, a controlled substance occurs within 1,000 feet of a school, college, or playground. 18 Pa.C.S Special verdicts would not cure the notice and appeal provisions of 18 Pa.C.S Specifically, as under Alleyne, the factual determinations of proximity and age pursuant to 6317 would be elements of a new aggravated offense, the complaint and information/indictment would have to set forth related allegations. This notice requirement could not be remedied by the use of special verdicts. The post-conviction notice provision of 18 Pa.C.S. 6317(b) reveals a legislative intent that the mandatory minimum sentence was not to constitute a brand-new crime, as that would require pre-trial notice. This is now unconstitutional in light of Alleyne s de jure designation of a new aggravated crime and the concomitant requirement of notice in the charging documents of this new offense. Under the Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VI, any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an element that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. A mandatory minimum sentence increases the penalty for a crime, and, thus, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury. Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (7/7/2015, PA Super) (Mandatory) The constitutional jury trial right requires any fact, other than a prior conviction, that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the finder of fact. Commonwealth v. McNeal, 120 A.3d 313 (7/16/2015, PA Super) (Revocation) Pa. R. Crim. P. 700 does not state that its terms apply to sentencing following a probation revocation. However, the General Assembly has instructed that, upon a probation revocation, the sentencing alternatives available to the court shall be the same as were available at the time of initial sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S. 9771(b). In other words, in practical effect, a judge imposing sentence after finding that a defendant has violated probation is no different from a judge imposing sentence in the first instance. For this precise reason, there is no principled difference between a judge imposing an original sentence and one imposing a probation violation sentence, and certainly no difference meaningful enough to exempt the latter from the dictates of Rule 700. No rule of procedure or case law either permits or prohibits a judge specifically from assuming control over a probation case supervised by another judge. Nonetheless, Pa. R. Crim. P. 700 provides that the judge who presided at the trial or who received the plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall impose sentence unless there are extraordinary circumstances which preclude the judge s presence. Rule 700(A). The use of the word shall in the language of the rule evinces Pennsylvania s general disinclination to permit different judges to try and to sentence a defendant. This policy recognizes the obvious value of a judge who is in the best position to view a defendant s character, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime. When formulating its order, the sentencing court must consider the nature of the criminal and the crime. When an appellate court considers an appeal from a sentence imposed following the revocation of probation, review is limited to determining the validity of the probation revocation proceedings and the authority of the sentencing court to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the initial sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S. 9771(b). Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. 108 Appendices

117 Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (7/16/2015, PA Super) (PSI) Where pre-sentence reports exist, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall continue to presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself. In order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging in an effort of legal purification, the Court states clearly that sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or systematic definitions of their punishment procedure. Having been fully informed by the pre-sentence report, the sentencing court s discretion should not be disturbed. This is particularly true in those circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the judge had any degree of awareness of the sentencing considerations, and there the Court will presume also that the weighing process took place in a meaningful fashion. It would be foolish, indeed, to take the position that if a court is in possession of the facts, it will fail to apply them to the case at hand. Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255 (7/20/2015, PA) (Appeal) The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has statutorily-provided exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals from death sentences. 42 Pa. Stat. Ann. 722; 9711(h). Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511 (7/24/2015, PA Super) (Modification) When a sentence is vacated it is rendered a legal nullity. In Wilson, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Commonwealth could introduce evidence in support of a sentencing enhancement after remand that it did not introduce at the first sentencing proceeding. Id. at Once the initial sentence is vacated, the admissibility of evidence at the second sentencing hearing becomes a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, as no restraints are placed upon the trial court s exercise of its discretion in that regard. Furthermore, when a sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the sentencing court for resentencing, the sentencing judge should start afresh. Reimposing a judgment of sentence should not be a mechanical exercise. Given the important nature of the interests involved, the judge at the second sentencing hearing should reassess the penalty to be imposed on the defendant-especially where defense counsel comes forward with relevant evidence which was not previously available. Thus, the appellant s conduct since the prior sentencing hearing is relevant at resentencing. The sentencing judge must take note of that new evidence and reevaluate whether the jail term which the appellant received is a just and appropriate punishment. Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 121 A.3d 530 (7/28/2015, PA Super) (Mandatory) The imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence based on a prior conviction was not unconstitutional. However, in cases where the fact which increases the maximum penalty was not a prior conviction and requires a subjective assessment, anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury violates due process. (Megan s Law/SORNA) 42 Pa.C.S (a)(3) requires an individual convicted of a Tier III sexual offense to register for life. An individual who was subject to registration under 42 Pa.C.S , commits an offense if he knowingly fails to verify his address or be photographed as required by 42 Pa.C.S Pa.C.S (a)(2). Additionally, any individual subject to lifetime registration under 42 Pa.C.S and , who fails to comply with such registration requirement, was subject to a mandatory sentence of at least three years in prison. 42 Pa.C.S (a)(1)(iii). Section provides for the imposition of a lesser mandatory minimum sentence (2 years) for individuals who were subject to 15 years of registration. 42 Pa.C.S (a)(1)(i). When it became effective, Pennsylvania s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 Pa.C.S , et seq., applied to sexual offenders already required to register. 42 Pa.C.S Commonwealth v. Carter, 122 A.3d 388 (9/1/2015, PA Super) (Mandatory) Alleyne holds that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to a jury and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Annual Report

118 Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 123 A.3d 1065 (9/11/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) The interplay between the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. 3804, the exception regarding sentencing options in 42 Pa.C.S. 9721(a.1), and the definition of eligible offender in 42 Pa.C.S. 9802, requires a measure of statutory interpretation, and because statutory interpretation is a question of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo, and the scope of review is plenary. (County Intermediate Punishment) The legislative intent in adopting intermediate punishment program (IPP) as a sentencing alternative was to give judges another sentencing option which would lie between probation and incarceration with respect to sentencing severity; to provide a more appropriate form of punishment/treatment for certain types of non-violent offenders; to make the offender more accountable to the community; and to help reduce the county jail overcrowding problem while maintaining public safety. The grant or denial of a defendant s request for IPP is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court. The same discretion applies to IPP in the context of a qualified first, second, or third DUI offender, regardless of the mandatory sentence set forth in the DUI statute, because the specific provisions in 42 Pa.C.S and 9804 permit the court to sentence such offenders to IPP after they have undergone assessment notwithstanding the mandatory sentencing provisions of Section 3804 of the DUI statute, 75 Pa.C.S Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (9/16/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle a petitioner to review as of right. Before an appellate court can address such a discretionary challenge, an appellant must comply with the following requirements: An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke the appellate court s jurisdiction by satisfying a fourpart test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa. R. Crim. P. (720); (3) whether appellant s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. (Concurrent/ Consecutive) A court s exercise of discretion in imposing a sentence concurrently or consecutively does not ordinarily raise a substantial question. Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment. (Modification) The filing of a motion to modify sentence will not toll the 30-day appeal period. Pa. R. Crim. P. 708(E). Any appeal must be filed within the 30-day appeal period unless the sentencing judge within 30 days of the imposition of sentence expressly grants reconsideration or vacates the sentence. After the 30 days have passed, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction to rule on the motion to reconsider sentence. (Revocation) The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment a sentencing court has not abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Upon revoking probation, a sentencing court may choose from any of the sentencing options that existed at the time of the original sentencing, including incarceration. 42 Pa.C.S. 9771(b). However, the imposition of total confinement upon revocation requires a finding that either (1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or (2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned, or (3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority of the court. 42 Pa.C.S. 9771(c). Commonwealth v. Hanna, 124 A.3d 757 (10/2/2015, PA Super) (Enhancement) An object that is normally not a deadly weapon can be considered as such depending on the circumstances. The contrapositive - that a deadly weapon not used as such can lose its identity as a deadly weapon - is not true. 110 Appendices

119 (RRRI) It is legal error to fail to impose a recidivism risk reduction incentive program (RRRI) minimum on an eligible offender. A challenge to a court s failure to impose an RRRI sentence implicates the legality of the sentence. The plain meaning of 61 Pa.C.S excludes offenders from the recidivism risk reduction incentive program who are convicted of an offense involving a deadly weapon. 4503(2). Notably, this provision does not say that a defendant must use the deadly weapon in any way; it requires only that the offense involve a deadly weapon. The recidivism risk reduction incentive program is a sentencing program that allows qualified, non-violent offenders to become eligible for parole before they have completed their sentence of incarceration if they complete requisite classes and tasks. Commonwealth v. Walsh, 125 A.3d 1248 (10/23/2015, PA Super) (PCRA) The one-year time bar of the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S , does not apply to motions for the performance of forensic DNA testing under 42 Pa.C.S Importantly, however, cannot be used to raise extraneous issues not related to DNA testing in an effort to avoid the one-year PCRA time bar. Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 125 A.3d 1272 (10/29/2015, PA Super) (Merger) A merger is appropriate only when two distinct criteria are satisfied: (1) the crimes arise from a single criminal act; and (2) all of the statutory elements of one of the offenses are included within the statutory elements of the other. When determining whether separate crimes constitute a single criminal act, a court should look to the elements of the crimes involved as charged by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Gaines, 127 A.3d 15 (11/5/2015, PA Super) (PCRA) In appropriate circumstances, a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S , court may impose a new sentence in its PCRA court order, as opposed to ordering a new sentencing proceeding. When a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S , court grants in part and denies in part a PCRA petition, the fact that it is final for purposes of appeal is a straightforward application of Pa. R. Crim. P. 910, which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explicitly cited to with approval in Bryant. Commonwealth v. Spenny, 128 A.3d 234 (11/17/2015, PA Super) (Guidelines) When sentencing a criminal defendant convicted of a felony and/or misdemeanor, the trial court must consider, inter alia, the sentencing guidelines adopted by the. 42 Pa.C.S. 9721(b); 204 Pa. Code 303.1(a). To determine the guideline sentence for each conviction, the trial court must establish the offense gravity score and the defendant s prior record score. 204 Pa. Code 303.2(a). The prior record score is based on the number and type of prior convictions the defendant has on his or her criminal record. 204 Pa. Code 303.4(a). Each prior conviction is given a point value ranging between one and four points. 204 Pa. Code 303.7, Sections and set forth the point value for every Pennsylvania criminal offense, but generally speaking, first-degree felony (F1) convictions are either three- or four-point offenses, F2 convictions are two-point offenses and F3 convictions are one-point offenses. (Prior Record) For sentencing purposes, a higher prior record score yields a higher guideline sentence, up to a maximum of five points. 204 Pa. Code 303.4(a)(3), (a). A defendant who has prior convictions of first-degree felonies and second-degree felonies that total six or more points is separately classified as a repeat felony one and felony two offender, which further increases the guideline sentence. 204 Pa. Code 303.4(a)(2), (a). For sentencing purposes, a prior conviction from another state court, federal court, or foreign jurisdiction is scored as a conviction for the current equivalent Pennsylvania offense. 204 Pa. Code 303.8(f)(1). If there is no current Pennsylvania equivalent, the trial court must base the grading of the crime on the maximum sentence allowed; if the grade of the prior felony conviction is unknown, it must be treated as an third-degree felony. 204 Pa. Code 303.8(d)(2), (f)(3). Annual Report

120 For sentencing purposes, if a defendant was sentenced for a single conviction at a prior judicial proceeding, that conviction is counted in the calculation of a defendant s prior record score. 204 Pa. Code 303.5(a). If a defendant was sentenced for multiple convictions at a single sentencing proceeding, the most serious offense is included in the prior record score calculation, as is any other offense for which the defendant received consecutive sentences. 204 Pa. Code 303.5(b). Prior convictions for which the trial court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently with the most serious offense at a single judicial sentencing proceeding are not included in the calculation of the prior record score. When determining the Pennsylvania equivalent statute for a prior, out-of-state conviction for prior record score purposes, courts must identify the elements of the foreign conviction and on that basis alone, identify the Pennsylvania statute that is substantially identical in nature and definition to the out-of-state offense. Courts are not tasked with ascertaining the statute under which the defendant would have been convicted if he or she had committed the out-of-state crime in Pennsylvania. Rather, courts must compare the elements of the foreign offense in terms of classification of the conduct proscribed, its definition of the offense, and the requirements for culpability to determine the Pennsylvania equivalent offense. Commonwealth v. Steckley, 128 A.3d 826 (11/30/2015, PA Super) (PCRA) A post-conviction petitioner seeking relief on the basis that ineffective assistance of counsel caused him or her to reject a guilty plea must demonstrate the following circumstance: But for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed. Nothing prevents a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S , petitioner from meeting his or her burden with his or her own self-serving statement that he or she would have entered a guilty plea but for counsel s ineffectiveness. As long as the PCRA court finds the petitioner s testimony to be credible, there is no coherent justification for characterizing such evidence as inherently deficient as a matter of law. In cases where a petitioner s testimony is credible and uncontradicted, it may suffice to establish a reasonable probability that the petitioner would have accepted the prosecution s plea offer. While a defendant s declaration of innocence is a factor that the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S , court may consider, it is not determinative. A defendant s assertion of innocence does not necessarily belie his or her later claim that he or she would have accepted a guilty plea offer. A criminal defendant might maintain his or her innocence up until the point of pleading guilty in order to strengthen his or her bargaining position. A defendant may enter a guilty plea while continuing to maintain that he or she is factually innocent. Some innocent defendants do plead guilty. Plea bargaining presents grave risks of prosecutorial overcharging that effectively compels an innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense. Commonwealth v. Dawson, 132 A.3d 996 (12/8/2015, PA Super) (Enhancement) 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(h) requires that a trial court determine whether a previous conviction exists at the time of sentencing, without giving consideration to when the conviction occurred. The statute does not contain any textual limitations as to when the first and second convictions arose. Furthermore, 6111(h)(5) states that a person shall be deemed to have been convicted of another offense under the section whether or not judgment of sentence has been imposed for that violation. 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(h)(5). Commonwealth v. Ciani, 130 A.3d 780 (12/23/2015, PA Super) (Merger) A conviction for aggravated assault requires a person, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, to: (1) attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another; or (2) cause such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. 18 Pa.C.S. 2702(a)(1). By contrast, to commit recklessly endangering another person (REAP), a person must recklessly engage in conduct which places or may place another person in actual danger of death or serious bodily injury. 18 Pa.C.S Aggravated assault contains an element missing from REAP - serious bodily injury or an attempt to cause serious bodily injury. On the other hand, an individual could recklessly place another person in danger of serious bodily injury without attempting to cause (or actually causing) serious bodily injury, which would support a conviction for REAP, but not for aggravated assault. 112 Appendices

121 Unlike aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP) requires the element of actual danger of death or serious bodily injury. An individual could attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another person without placing that person in actual danger, which would support a conviction for aggravated assault but not REAP. Each offense requires proof of an element that is absent from the other offense, and one offense can be committed without committing the other offense. Therefore, convictions for aggravated assault and REAP do not merge for sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S.A Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (12/30/2015, PA Super) (Appeal) The appellate court has consistently rejected any attempt by the Commonwealth to employ a harmless error analysis to overcome the mandate of Alleyne. The appellate court has made clear that an Alleyne claim is a non-waivable challenge to the legality of sentence. Such a claim may be raised on direct appeal, or in a timely filed Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S , petition. Under 42 Pa.C.S. 9542, persons serving illegal sentences may obtain collateral relief. Issues relating to the legality of sentence cannot be waived and are cognizable under the PCRA. Alleyne constitutes a new rule that applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review. (Mandatory) The United States Supreme Court has held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an element that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying that mandate, an en banc panel of the appellate court, has held that Alleyne renders the mandatory minimum sentencing provision at former 42 Pa.C.S unconstitutional. Former , which provides for a five-year mandatory minimum prison term for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance convictions when a firearm is in close proximity to the illegal drugs, includes a provision that permits the trial court to determine at sentencing whether the elements necessary to increase the mandatory minimum sentence were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Former (c). The appellate court has held that, under Alleyne, former can no longer pass constitutional muster because it permits the trial court, as opposed to the jury, to increase a defendant s minimum sentence based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard. Annual Report

122 APPENDIX C: SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES Sentencing Alternative Title / Section Purpose Guilt without further Penalty Fine Fine Restitution Order of Probation County Intermediate Punishment (a)(2) (a)(5) (a) (b)-(o) (a)(5) (b) (b)-(o) (c) (a)(1) (a)(6) Probation would be appropriate, but appears unnecessary. Fine Only: If, with regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history and character of the defendant, a fine alone suffices. Fine as additional sentence: If defendant has derived pecuniary gain from the crime or that fine will serve deterrent or correctional purpose. Restitution in addition to alternatives: court shall order defendant to compensate victim of criminal conduct for damages or injury sustained. Probation suggested when criminal activity included no serious harm, defendant is generally law-abiding, the behavior is unlikely to recur, and/or confinement deemed unnecessary or would cause an excessive hardship. County Intermediate Punishment is recommended for a defendant who would otherwise be sentenced to partial or total confinement in a county facility and who does not demonstrate present or past violent behavior. Limitations on Eligibility Except under mandatory provisions, no specific limitations on eligibility. As authorized by law; court must determine defendant's ability to pay, and that fine will not prevent payment of restitution. As authorized by law; court must determine defendant's ability to pay, and that fine will not prevent payment of restitution. No limitations on eligibility; mandatory restitution required by Acts and No specific limitations on eligibility. Statutory listing of ineligible offenses and minimum program standards provided in Pennsylvania Code. Sentencing Provisions Does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Fine may not exceed statutory maximum for offenses; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Fine may not exceed statutory maximum for offense; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Restitution shall be ordered, regardless of defendant s ability to pay; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Flat sentence/not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Flat sentence comprised of RIP and RS programs, not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; generally does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Exceptions: DUI and DUS/DUI. Guideline Conformity GWFP is a Restorative Sanction [RS] Fine is a Restorative Sanction [RS]. Fine is a Restorative Sanction [RS]. Restitution is a Restorative Sanction [RS]. Probation is a Restorative Sanction [RS]. Only Restrictive Intermediate Punishment [RIP] program(s) calculated as incarceration. 114 Appendices

123 Sentencing Alternative Title / Section Purpose State Intermediate Punishment Partial Confinement Total Confinement State Intermediate Punishment is recommended for a drug dependent defendant who would otherwise be serving a minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility (a)(3) (a)(4) Probation would appear inappropriate, but further appears total confinement not required, and facilities available. Total confinement necessary because: undue risk that defendant would commit another crime under lesser alternative; correctional treatment provided most effectively via commitment to institution; or lesser sentence depreciates seriousness of crime. Limitations on Eligibility Assessment conducted by DOC prior to sentencing. Statutory listing of ineligible offenses. Confinement consistent with protection of public; consideration of Sentencing Guidelines, PSI, and mandatories. Confinement consistent with protection of public; consideration of Sentencing Guidelines, PSI, and mandatories. Sentencing Provisions Flat sentence of 24 months comprised of an individualized treatment plan and supervision controlled by DOC. Court may impose consecutive probation, total not to exceed statutory maximum of offense. Min/Max sentence subject to parole; maximum not to exceed statutory maximum of offense. Exception: Flat sentence (no parole) of up to 90 days with consecutive County IP. Min/Max sentence subject to parole; maximum not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; satisfies mandatory incarceration requirement. Exception: Flat sentence (no parole) of up to 90 days with consecutive County IP. Guideline Conformity State Intermediate Punishment sentence of 24 months is a standard range sentence. Only Partial Confinement minimum sentence calculated as incarceration. Only Total Confinement minimum sentence calculated as incarceration. Annual Report

124 APPENDIX D: PENNSYLVANIA S MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING PROVISIONS (Shaded statutes reflect appellate court opinions, as footnoted, regarding mandatory sentencing) Relevant Title/Section 18 Pa. C.S. 1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. 2502(a); 42 Pa. C.S Pa. C.S. 1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. 2507(a) 18 Pa. C.S. 1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. 2604(a) 18 Pa. C.S. 1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. 2502(a) 18 Pa. C.S. 1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. 2507(b) 18 Pa. C.S. 1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. 2604(b) Description Mandatory Minimum Sentence Prosecutorial Notice Requirement Murder of the first degree Death or life imprisonment No notice required Murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree Death or life imprisonment No notice required First degree murder of an unborn child Life imprisonment No notice required Murder of the second degree Life imprisonment No notice required Murder of a law enforcement officer of the second degree Life imprisonment No notice required Second degree murder of an unborn child Life imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S Sentence for persons under age 18 for murder, murder of unborn child, murder of law enforcement officer (a)(1) First degree murder, person age 15 to <18 years 35 years to life imprisonment No notice required (a)(2) First degree murder, person age <15 years 25 years to life imprisonment (c)(1) Second degree murder, person age 15 to <18 years 30 years to life imprisonment (c)(2) Second degree murder, person age <15 years 20 years to life imprisonment (Mandatory Maximum is life imprisonment) 18 Pa. C.S Assault by life prisoner Life imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 2716(b)(1) Weapons of mass destruction and use resulted in death of an individual Life imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 3301(a)(2) Arson endangering persons as murder of the first degree Death or life imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 3301(a)(2) Arson endangering persons as murder of the second degree Life imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 5123(a.1) Controlled substance contraband to confined person 2 years total confinement No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 6111(h) Sale or transfer of firearms; subsequent violation 5 years imprisonment Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 18 Pa. C.S Certain bullets prohibited 5 years imprisonment No notice required 18 Pa. C.S. 6314(a); 35 P.S (a)(14) or (30) 18 Pa. C.S. 6314(b); 35 P.S (a)(14) or (30) Sentencing and penalties for trafficking drugs to minors 1 year total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing Sentencing and penalties for trafficking drugs to minors (promoting habitual use or engage in trafficking, 1,000 feet of real property of school, school bus, 500 feet school bus stop) 3 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 1 18 Pa. C.S. 6317; 35 P.S (a)(14) or (30) Drug free school zones 2 years total confinement / 4 year maximum Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 1 Com. v. Hopkins, 117A.3d 192 (Pa. 2015). Supreme Court affirmed judgement of trial court that 18 Pa.C.S 6317 to be unconstitutional and that its violative provisions were not severable. Com. v. Bizzel, 107 A. 3d 102 (Pa. Super. 2014). Unconstitutional provisions cannot be severed and hold 18 Pa.C.S 6317 to be unconstitutional. 116 Appendices

125 Relevant Title/Section 2 18 Pa.C.S P.S (a)(14), (30) & (37) Description Drug trafficking sentencing and penalties Amphetamine Mandatory Minimum Sentence 5 grams or more 1st conviction: 2.5 years subsequent: 5 years Cocaine 2 grams to < 10 grams 1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 3 years 10 grams < 100 grams 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years 100 grams or more 1st conviction: 4 years subsequent: 7 years Heroin 1 gram to < 5 grams 1st conviction: 2 years subsequent: 3 years 5 grams to < 50 grams 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years Prosecutorial Notice Requirement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 50 grams or more 1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 7 years Marijuana 2 lbs. to < 10 lbs. or 10 to < 21 live plants 1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 2 years 10 lbs. to < 50 lbs. or 21 to < 51 live plants 1st conviction: 3 years Subsequent: 4 years 50 lbs. or more or 51 live plants or more 1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 5 years Methamphetamine / Phencyclidine 5 grams to < 10 grams 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years 10 grams to < 100 grams 1st conviction: 4 years subsequent: 7 years 100 grams or more 1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 8 years Methaqualone 50 tablets to < 200 tablets or 25 grams to < 100 grams 1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 3 years 200 tablets or more or > 100 grams 1st conviction: 2.5 years subsequent: 5 years Narcotics of Schedule I or II 2 grams to < 10 grams 1st conviction: 2 years subsequent: 3 years 10 grams to < 100 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years 100 grams or more 1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 7 years 2 Com. v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2015); Trial court exceeded its authority by permitting the jury, via a special verdict slip, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt the factual predicate of section 7508; the trial court performed an impermissible legislative function by creating a new procedure in an effort to impose the mandatory minimum sentence in compliance with Alleyne. Com. v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014); Court upheld that 18 Pa.C.S 7508 was deemed unconstitutional in its entirety in Fennel v. Com. 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014). Annual Report

126 Relevant Title/Section Description Mandatory Minimum Sentence Prosecutorial Notice Requirement 30 Pa. C.S Operating watercraft under influence of alcohol or controlled substance No notice required (a)(1) incapable safe operation (a)(1) refuse testing (a)(1) accident (a)(2) BAC.08 - <.10 (a.1) BAC.10 - <.16 (a.2) BAC.16+ (a.3) controlled substance (a.4) under 21 years of age 1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd+ conviction: 10 days 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd+ conviction: 10 days 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction: 1 year 30 Pa. C.S Homicide by watercraft while operating under the influence 3 years imprisonment No notice required 35 P.S (k) Manufacture of amphetamines, methamphetamine, or phenylacetone, & phenyl-2-proponone 2 years total confinement No notice required 3 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses committed with firearms 5 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 4 42 Pa. C.S ; 35 P.S (a)(30) Certain drug offenses committed with firearms 5 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 5 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses committed on public transportation 5 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 3 Com. v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super 2015). Trial court lacks the authority to allow the jury to determine the factual predicates of 9712 and Com. v. Valentine, 101 A. 3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014). Court adheres to decision in Newman which concluded that the entirety of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute must be stricken as unconstitutional because [w]ithout Subsection (c), there is no mechanism in place to determine whether the predicate of Subsection (a) has been met and that it is for the legislature to create new mandatory minimum sentencing procedures in conformity with Alleyne. 4 Com. v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014). Court finds that Alleyne does indicate that the sentencing practice under Section is unconstitutional. 5 Com. v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801. (Pa. Super. 2014). Court adheres to decision in Newman which concluded that the entirety of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute must be stricken as unconstitutional because [w]ithout Subsection (c), there is no mechanism in place to determine whether the predicate of Subsection (a) has been met and that it is for the legislature to create new mandatory minimum sentencing procedures in conformity with Alleyne. 118 Appendices

127 Relevant Title/Section Description Mandatory Minimum Sentence Prosecutorial Notice Requirement 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for second or subsequent offenses Notice required prior to 2nd conviction for crime of violence 10 years sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 3rd or subsequent conviction for crime of violence 25 years total confinement or life imprisonment 42 Pa. C.S Life imprisonment for homicide (previously convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter) Life imprisonment 42 Pa. C.S Two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable. Longest mandatory minimum applies Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses against elderly persons No notice required / Notice required prior to guilty plea 18 Pa. C.S. 2702(a)(1) & (a)(4) Aggravated assault 2 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S Rape 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S IDSI 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S Theft by deception 1 year imprisonment (unless court finds justifiable cause) 6 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses against victims younger than age 16 years Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at 18 Pa. C.S. Aggravated assault 2 years imprisonment sentencing 2702(a)(1) & (a)(4) 18 Pa. C.S. 3121(a)(1)-(5) Rape 10 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S IDSI 10 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. 3125(a)(1)-(6) Aggravated indecent assault 5 years imprisonment 6 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses against victims younger than age 13 years Notice required prior to 18 Pa. C.S. 2502(c) Murder 15 years imprisonment sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 18 Pa. C.S. 2702(a)(1) Aggravated assault 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. 3121(c) & (d) 18 Pa. C.S. 3125(a)(7) 18 Pa. C.S. 3125(a)(1)-(6) & (b) Rape Aggravated indecent assault Aggravated indecent assault 10 years imprisonment 5 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for sex offenses Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing Current conviction of a Megan s Law offense and previously convicted of Megan s Law offense or equivalent Current conviction of a Megan s Law offense and previously convicted of 2 or more Megan s Law offenses or equivalent. 25 years confinement / maximum double minimum Life imprisonment 6 Com. v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2014). As Section 9718 is indistinguishable from the statutes struck down in Newman and Valentine, the Court is constrained to conclude that Section 9718 is also facially void. As a result, the Court concludes the trial court erred in imposing the ten-year mandatory minimum and is compelled to conclude that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it imposed the mandatory minimum sentence in this case. Annual Report

128 Relevant Title/Section Description Mandatory Minimum Sentence Prosecutorial Notice Requirement 42 Pa. C.S Sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at 1 st offense / subject to , 15 years registration and 2 years sentencing violated (a)(1) or (2) 42 Pa. C.S (a.1) 1 st offense / subject to , 15 years registration and violated (a)(3) 1 st offense / subject to , 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a)(1) or (2) 1st offense / subject to , 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a)(3) 2 nd /subsequent offense / subject to , 15 or 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a)(1) or (2) 2 nd /subsequent offense / subject to , 15 or 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a)(3) 3 years 3 years 5 years 5 years 7 years Sentence for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders, transients 1st offense / subject to , 15 years registration and violated (a.1)(1) or (2) 1st offense / subject to , 15 years registration and violated (a.1)(3) 1st offense / subject to , 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a.1)(1) or (2) 1st offense / subject to , 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a.1)(3) 2 nd / subsequent offense / subject to , 15 or 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a.1)(1) or (2) 2nd / subsequent offense / subject to , 15 or 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a.1)(3) 2nd / subsequent offense / subject to , 15 or 25 years or lifetime registration and violated (a.1)(3) 42 Pa. C.S Sentences for offenses committed while impersonating a law enforcement officer 42 Pa. C.S ; 18 Pa. C.S Assault of law enforcement officer in the first degree (discharging firearm) 2 years 3 years 3 years 5 years 5 years 7 years 7 years Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 3 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing 20 years imprisonment No notice required 75 Pa. C.S. 1543(b) Driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked, DUIrelated 60 days, unless imbibing 1st offense: 90 days 2nd offense: 6 months 3rd+ offense: 2 years 75 Pa. C.S Homicide by vehicle while DUI 3 years Consecutive 3 years for each victim No notice required No notice required 75 Pa. C.S Accidents involving death or personal injury; leaving scene of accident No notice required Victim suffers SBI Victim dies 90 days 3 years imprisonment 120 Appendices

129 Relevant Title/Section Description Mandatory Minimum Sentence Prosecutorial Notice Requirement 75 Pa. C.S Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance No notice required (a)(1) incapable of driving safely or (a)(2) BAC.08 - <.10 (a)(1) incapable of driving safely involving accident, or (b) BAC.10 - <.16, or (e) minor, or (f) commercial/school vehicle (a)(1) incapable of driving safely involving refused testing, or (c) BAC.16 or greater, (d) controlled substances 1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd+ conviction: 10 days 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction: 1 year 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year 75 Pa. C.S. 3804(c.1) Violation involving minor occupant No notice required Violates 3803(b)(5), 1 st offense Fine not less than $1,000; 100 hours community service Violates 3803(b)(5), 2 nd offense Fine not less than $2,500; Imprisonment not less than 1 month Violates 3803(b)(5), 3 rd offense Imprisonment not less than 6 month nor more than 2 years 75 Pa. C.S Illegally operating motor vehicle not equipped with ignition lock. 90 days No notice required Annual Report

130 APPENDIX E: STATUTORY LIMITS 122 Appendices