Aggravated Harassment by a Prisoner Sentence Guideline Range Probation Excessive Leniency
Commonwealth v. Ball, PICS Case No. 17-1107 (Pa. Super. June 22, 2017) Stabile, J. (22 pages).
Trial court acted within its permissible discretion in imposing a sentence below the guideline range for appellee's conviction for aggravated harassment by a prisoner, aggravated assault and simple assault because appellee had special mental health problems that would be exacerbated by continued incarceration but were addressable in a probationary setting. Affirmed.
Appellee screamed at, spit on and kicked corrections officers on several occasions. She was charged with multiple counts of aggravated harassment by a prisoner, aggravated assault and simple assault. She pleaded guilty and the court imposed a sentence of five years' probation. The commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration and the court modified appellee's sentence to include six months of electronic monitoring. The commonwealth appealed.
The commonwealth asserted the trial judge abused his discretion by imposing a sentence below the mitigated range of the sentencing guidelines that was excessively lenient and argued that the statutory factors in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9722 and 9725 warranted incarceration. The commonwealth noted that the aggregate guideline range, had the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for all six offenses, was 126 to 162 months of incarceration.
The court found that the trial court relied in part on a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation that opined that appellee would be better off in a mental health facility and that persistent confinement to the restricted housing unit was exacerbating her mental illness. The trial court also relied on another doctor's report that relied on information from appellee's stay at a state hospital that opined that the "deprivation filled and sometimes psychologically abusive environment of the RHU" would exacerbate appellee's PTSD and depression and contributed to her aggressive behavior. The trial court also closely questioned that doctor about why her conclusions differed from those of appellee's doctor at the state hospital and pressed the doctor on whether appellee was faking symptoms. The trial court concluded that further prison and RHU time would make appellee more dangerous. The commonwealth argued that the trial court placed undue weight on appellee's alleged mental illness and disregarded such aggravating factors as her poor prison disciplinary record, her significant criminal history and her lack of remorse. The commonwealth also asserted the trial court rewarded appellee for bad behavior and created an incentive for other inmates to commit similar misconduct.
The court found that the trial court acted within its permissible sentencing discretion. The trial court undertook a detailed analysis of 9722 and noted that appellee's conduct in this case did not cause or threaten serious harm and that given her mental illness, she did not contemplate that her conduct would cause or threaten serious harm. The doctors' reports also supported the trial court's conclusion that appellee was likely to respond well to probationary treatment.