Com. v. Culp, J. ( 2015 )

J-S22027-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JEREMY R. CULP
Appellant No. 1652 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000396-2011,
CP-07-CR-0001960-2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 02, 2015
Jeremy R. Culp appeals from the judgment of sentence, imposed by
the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, following the revocation of his
probation. Upon review, we affirm.
On May 13, 2011, Culp pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking,1 simple
assault,2 and recklessly endangering another person.3 Thereafter, the court
sentenced Culp to an aggregate term of three years’ probation.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 2701.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.
J-S22027-15
On October 10, 2013, the Blair County Probation Office detained Culp
after he admitted to consuming alcohol in violation of the terms of his
probation. On December 13, 2013, the Blair County Probation Office again
detained Culp for absconding after he missed a mandatory meeting.
However, it was later determined Culp missed the meeting because he had
been hospitalized for attempted suicide.
On February 28, 2014, the court conducted a Gagnon II4 hearing
regarding the aforementioned probation violations. At the hearing, the
Commonwealth presented evidence of extensive violations and difficulties
with Culp’s probation. Ultimately, the court found that the October 2013
incident constituted a technical violation of Culp’s probation and further
directed Culp to undergo a mental health evaluation at Torrence State
Hospital.
On August 28, 2014, the court conducted a second Gagnon II
hearing. At that hearing, the court heard evidence from Torrence State
Hospital regarding Culp’s drug and alcohol dependency and his history of
committing violent acts while under the influence of those substances.
Based on this testimony and Culp’s history of over twenty probation
violations during the previous ten years, the Blair County Probation Office
recommended that the court revoke Culp’s probation and impose a sentence
____________________________________________
4
See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
-2-
J-S22027-15
of total confinement. The court adopted the Commonwealth’s
recommendation and sentenced Culp to an aggregate term of 29 to 58
months’ incarceration on August 28, 2014.
On October 9, 2014, Culp filed a timely notice of appeal wherein he
presents a single issue for our review: “Whether the court abused its
discretion when it sentenced Jeremy Culp to a period of incarceration of not
less than 29 nor more than 58 months at the state correctional institute.”
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Our standard of review for challenges to sentences following the
revocation of probation is well settled.
Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial
court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of
discretion. An abuse of discretion requires the trial court to have
acted with manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly
erroneous. It is also now accepted that in an appeal following
the revocation of probation, it is within our scope of review to
consider challenges to both the legality of the final sentence and
the discretionary aspects of an appellants sentence.
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2010)
(citations omitted).
Culp argues that his total sentence is manifestly excessive and
contrary to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771, which states in pertinent part,
(c) Limitation on sentence of total confinement.--The court
shall not impose a sentence of total confinement upon revocation
unless it finds that:
(1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or
-3-
J-S22027-15
(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)(1)-(3). Culp argues that none of the factors
articulated above were present in the instant case. Thus, the lower court
erred in imposing a sentence of total confinement. We disagree with Culp’s
assessment.
Initially, we note that there was substantial evidence demonstrating
Culp’s likelihood of committing another crime. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9117(c)2).
Specifically, the record reflects Culp’s history of violent and unpredictable
behavior while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, including numerous
DUI charges and one altercation in which he was shot. Culp has failed to
address his severe addiction issues. Instead, he continues to reoffend
despite several probationary periods. Therefore, it was reasonable for the
lower court to impose the sentence of total confinement.
Moreover, there was ample evidence presented demonstrating why
such a sentence was essential to vindicate the authority of the court. See
42 Pa.C.S. § 9117(c)(3). Culp continuously violated the terms of his most
recent period of probation by abusing drugs and alcohol. He also incurred
many probation violations during his various periods of supervision over the
last decade. Culp’s conduct exhibits a flagrant disregard for the
rehabilitative purpose of the probation program and a lack of respect for the
-4-
J-S22027-15
authority of the courts. Accordingly, we find it reasonable for the trial court
to conclude such a sentence was essential to vindicate its authority.
As this Court has previously stated, “The likelihood of re-offense and
the need for incarceration to vindicate the trial court’s authority are matters
that require the consideration of many factors, and two judges considering
the same record may or may not arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, the
need to afford discretion to sentencing courts applying § 9771(c) is plainly
evident.” Commonwealth v. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 95 (Pa. Super.
2012). Based on the aforementioned facts, we discern no abuse of
discretion on behalf of the trial court in its decision to sentence to Culp to 29
to 58 months’ incarceration.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
PANELLA, J., Joins the majority.
STRASSBURGER, J., files a Concurring Memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/2/2015
-5-