Commonwealth v. Crump
2010 Pa. Super. 101, 995 A.2d 1280, 2010 Pa. Super. LEXIS 413 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant's probation from a split sentence is revoked, the original probationary term is not included when calculating whether the new sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The legality of the new sentence is determined by whether the new total sentence (incarceration plus probation) exceeds the maximum and whether the total aggregate time of incarceration exceeds the maximum.
Facts:
- Ryfee Crump led police on a car chase, crashed his vehicle, and attempted to flee on foot.
- Upon apprehension, police found Crump in possession of 3.576 grams of crack cocaine.
- After serving a term of imprisonment for a possession with intent to deliver (PWID) conviction, Crump was released on a consecutive term of probation.
- While on probation, Crump failed to report to his probation officer as required.
- Crump was subsequently arrested for a new offense of possessing a controlled substance.
- During this second arrest, Crump was shot but fled from the hospital and remained a fugitive until he was arrested a third time.
Procedural Posture:
- After a non-jury trial, Ryfee Crump was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver (PWID).
- The trial court imposed a split sentence of one to two years incarceration followed by a consecutive three-year term of probation.
- Following Crump's new arrest while on probation, a violation of probation (VOP) hearing was conducted on his original PWID sentence.
- The trial court found that Crump had violated his probation.
- The trial court resentenced Crump to a term of one to two years incarceration followed by a consecutive four-year term of probation.
- Crump (Appellant) appealed the new sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing it was illegal and an abuse of discretion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a new sentence imposed after a probation revocation exceed the statutory maximum for the original offense when the time from the original probationary term is combined with the new sentence?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowes, J.
No, a new sentence imposed after probation revocation does not exceed the statutory maximum simply because the original probationary term, when added to it, would surpass the limit. Upon revocation of probation, the court possesses the same sentencing alternatives that were available at the time of the initial sentencing. Under Pennsylvania statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(b), a defendant is not entitled to credit for time spent on probation. The legality of the new sentence is assessed by ensuring two conditions are met: 1) the new sentence itself (its combined term of incarceration and probation) does not exceed the statutory maximum for the original crime, and 2) the total time the defendant will spend incarcerated (the original term plus the new term) does not exceed that maximum. Because Crump's new sentence of 1-2 years incarceration plus 4 years probation (totaling 6 years) and his total time incarcerated (original 2 years + new 2 years = 4 years) are both well under the 10-year statutory maximum for his PWID offense, the sentence is legal.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the sentencing calculus in Pennsylvania following the revocation of probation from a 'split sentence' (incarceration followed by probation). It establishes that the original probationary period is effectively nullified upon revocation and does not count against the statutory maximum when a new sentence is imposed. This gives trial courts significant latitude in resentencing, reinforcing the idea that probation is a conditional privilege, the violation of which can result in the imposition of any sentence that was originally available. The ruling prevents defendants from 'banking' time served on probation to limit a court's sentencing options after a violation.
