presentence hearing in Pennsylvania

2022This position was recently reinforced by our Supreme Court in Ford, wherein the Court observed that “a presentence hearing on the ability to pay a mandatory fine is not required.” Ford, supra at 827-28 (citing Gipple, supra at 601 n.1).

2022This position was recently reinforced by our Supreme Court in Ford, wherein the Court observed that “a presentence hearing on the ability to pay a mandatory fine is not required.” Ford, supra at 827-28 (citing Gipple, supra at 601 n.1).

2025Id.

2024Nevertheless, Appellant relies on Hvizda, supra and Commonwealth v. Baez, 169 A.3d 35 , 42 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2017), for the proposition that “the presentence standard applies where, as here, the parties negotiate a sentence, but the defendant moves to ____________________________________________ 3 The certified record on appeal includes copies of these photographs. -8- J-A12021-24 withdraw the plea prior to sentencing.”4 (Appellant’s Brief at 16).

2022The presentence standard also applies where, as here, “the parties negotiate a sentence, but the defendant moves to withdraw the plea prior to sentencing.” Commonwealth v. Garcia, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 1087377 , at *2 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2022). -8- J-S12029-22 “liberally in favor of the accused.” Commonwealth v. Blango, 150 A.3d 45, 47 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citing Carrasquillo, supra at 1291-92 ).

2014In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the sentencing court noted that it “arguably committed” an error of law by failing to compel a presentence Assessment, recognizing a recent Superior Court decision, Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 (Pa.Super.2011), in which the court accepted the argument that a Section 3814(2) Assessment is a mandatory presentence condition.

2014Thereafter, on December 18, 2013, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.3 On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review. [1] Did the lower court err by imposing a disproportionate sentence based upon the nature of the violation and by failing to order a presentence investigation report or otherwise engage in a presentence inquiry to apprise itself of the [Appellant’s] circumstances of life and other significant factors relevant to the sentence? ____________________________________________ 2 Pursuant to Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , (1973), before probation/parole can

2014Id. at 781-782 . 3 Appellant and the trial court have timely complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -3- J-S57027-14 Appellant’s Brief at 7.4 Our standard of review when determining if a trial court erred in imposing a sentence following the revocation of probation is well-settled. [O]ur 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.

1989Indeed, the Court quoted from Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 203-204 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2939 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (plurality), the following: *216 We think that the Georgia court wisely has chosen not to impose unnecessary restrictions on the evidence that can be offered at such a hearing and to approve open and far-ranging argument____ So long as the evidence intro- duced and the arguments made at the presentence hearing do not prejudice a defendant, it is preferable not to impose restrictions.

1989Indeed, the Court quoted from Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 203-204 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2939 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (plurality), the following: *216 We think that the Georgia court wisely has chosen not to impose unnecessary restrictions on the evidence that can be offered at such a hearing and to approve open and far-ranging argument____ So long as the evidence intro- duced and the arguments made at the presentence hearing do not prejudice a defendant, it is preferable not to impose restrictions.

1989We think it desirable for the jury to have as much information as possible when it makes the sentencing decision. 462 U.S. at 886-887 , 103 S.Ct. at 2748 .

1989We think it desirable for the jury to have as much information as possible when it makes the sentencing decision. 462 U.S. at 886-887 , 103 S.Ct. at 2748 .