Com. v. Reigle, J. ( 2021 )

J-A17015-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JASON LAWRENCE REIGLE :
:
Appellant : No. 246 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0001258-2019
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: Filed: October 21, 2021
Jason Lawrence Reigle appeals from the judgment of sentence following
the revocation of his probation. Reigle contends that his sentence was
manifestly excessive and did not take into account his rehabilitative needs,
and that the court failed to state on the record adequate reasons for the
sentence. We affirm.
The trial court discussed the procedural history of this matter as follows:
On information 5628-2018, [Reigle] was charged with the
following: one count of possession of methamphetamine,
five counts of possession of paraphernalia, and one count of
possession of marijuana for personal use.1 On March 13,
2019, [Reigle] entered a negotiated guilty plea and was
sentenced to 12 months of probation to be served
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16)(M), (a)(32)(M), and (a)(3)(i)(M), respectively.
J-A17015-21
consecutive to his sentence for case 2663-2018.2 Special
conditions imposed were that [Reigle] complete drug and
alcohol treatment. On September 3, 2019, a probation
violation hearing was held where [Reigle] . . . was found in
violation of his probation. [Reigle]’s probation was revoked,
and he was resentenced to 12 months of probation
consecutive to case 2663-2018 with special conditions to
abide by drug and alcohol treatment. On January 24, 2020,
[Reigle] appeared for another probation violation hearing in
which he agreed to the violation and resentenced to 12
months of probation. His special conditions were to comply
with all drug and alcohol [treatment recommendations and
his probation was to be served concurrently with all other
bills of information.
On information 1258-2019, [Reigle] was charged with one
count of flight to avoid apprehension.3 On July 8, 2019,
[Reigle] entered a guilty plea and this [c]ourt sentenced
[Reigle] to 24 months of probation. No special conditions
were imposed. On January 24, 2020, [Reigle] appeared for
a probation violation hearing . . . and was found in violation
of probation. [Reigle’s] probation was revoked, and he was
resentenced to 24 months to be served concurrently to all
other cases being served. Special conditions were that
[Reigle] abide by all drug and alcohol treatment
recommendations.
On information 5781-2019, [Reigle] was charged with one
count of flight to avoid apprehension. On January 24, 2020,
[Reigle] entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 24
months of probation in the County Intermediate Punishment
Program to be served concurrent with all other probation
violation matters. [Reigle] was subject to the following
restrictions: drug and alcohol treatment, complete mental
health evaluation, have GPS monitoring for a minimum of
90 days, serve a minimum of 100 hours of community
service, reside at an approved residence at all times, submit
____________________________________________
2 On that docket, on March 13, 2019, Reigle entered a guilty plea and was
sentenced to twelve months of probation for simple assault and harassment,
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701 and 2709, respectively.
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5126(a)(M2).
-2-
J-A17015-21
to random, frequent drug testing, and to report as
instructed. [Reigle] was warned that any further violations
would result in [Reigle] serving not less than 12 months to
no more than 24 months in the state correctional facility.
On information 5783-2019, [Reigle] was charged with one
count of possession of heroin and one count of possession
of drug paraphernalia. On January 24, 2020, [Reigle]
entered negotiated guilty plea and [was] sentenced to 12
months of probation to be served concurrently with all other
probation violation sentencings held on that date. Special
conditions imposed were that [Reigle] enter a drug and
alcohol treatment as directed and comply with the
conditions for case 5781-2019.
Following the January 24, 2020 sentences on four separate
dockets, [Reigle] was sentenced to restrictive probation and
was paroled on February 18, 2020, to inpatient treatment
at Pyramid Treatment Center. On March 2, 2020, [Reigle]
was reported to have left the inpatient facility against
medical advice. Officer Portillo from Bucks County Adult
Probation directed [Reigle] to report to the Bucks County
Justice Center on March 3, 2020, and [Reigle] failed to
appear. Officer Portillo spoke with [Reigle]’s emergency
contacts and learned that [Reigle] refused to accept
transportation to the Justice Center. [Reigle]’s whereabouts
were unknown, and a bench warrant was issued on March
6, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the warrant was served at an
unapproved address where [Reigle] was located.
Trial Ct. Op., 3/24/21, at 1-3 (original footnotes and internal citations to the
record omitted).
Probation and police officers attempted to serve a search warrant but
were unable to locate Reigle. Id. at 3. After receiving additional information,
officers obtained permission to enter a residence where Reigle was reported
to be hiding. Officers found Reigle hiding underneath the floor in a crawlspace.
Reigle refused to leave the crawlspace until officers said they would call a K-
-3-
J-A17015-21
9 unit. Id. at 3-4. Appellant was charged with and entered a guilty plea to
flight to avoid apprehension on December 14, 2020.
On December 18, 2020, the court held a probation violation hearing. On
information numbers 5628-2018 and 1258-2019, the violations were the
second; for informations 5781-2019 and 5783-2019, they were the first. Prior
to sentencing, all parties acknowledged that the court had previously informed
Reigle that if he violated his supervision, the court would impose a sentence
of 12 to 24 months of incarceration. N.T., 12/18/20, at 5, 22-23. At 5628-
2018 the court sentenced Reigle to 12 months of probation concurrent with
any other sentence; on 5783-2018, the court sentenced Reigle to 12 months
of probation consecutive to 5628-2018. At 1258-2019, Reigle was sentenced
to time served to not more than 23 months of incarceration and immediately
paroled. At 5781-2019, the court sentenced Reigle to a period of 12 to 24
months of incarceration.
Reigle timely filed post-sentence motions, which the court denied on
January 4, 2021. Reigle timely filed separate notices of appeal at case
numbers 1258-2019 and 5781-2019.
Reigle raises a single issue for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its
discretion in resentencing Appellant by imposing manifestly excessive
sentences, failing to consider all relevant factors, and failing to adequately
state the reasons relied upon for imposing said sentence?” Reigle’s Br. at 6.
Reigle’s issue is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
When reviewing a challenge to such this Court must first determine whether:
-4-
J-A17015-21
(1) the appeal is timely; (2) the appellant properly preserved the issues
presented; (3) the brief contains a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement; and (4) the
appellant has presented a substantial question. See Commonwealth v.
Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 467 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v.
Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa.Super. 2010)).
Reigle filed a timely appeal, preserved his issues with a post-sentence
motion, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement. We therefore turn to
whether he has presented a substantial question. “The determination of what
constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). 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.” Commonwealth
v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa.Super. 2000).
An excessive sentence claim, in conjunction with an assertion that the
court failed to consider mitigating factors, may raise a substantial question.
See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 (Pa.Super. 2015).
We therefore will consider his arguments on the merits.
Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing
judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse
of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment.
“Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
-5-
J-A17015-21
sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for
reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly
unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275
(Pa.Super. 2006).
Further, when a trial court sentences a defendant following the
revocation of probation, it “is limited only by the maximum sentence that it
could have imposed originally at the time of the probationary sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Fish, 752 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa.Super. 2000). The court
may impose a sentence of total confinement upon revoking probation if: “(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.A. § 9771(c).
Reigle argues that the court did not consider all relevant factors,
including his age, family history, and rehabilitative needs. Reigle’s Br. at 9.
Reigle contends that his life spiraled out of control when he began using drugs,
but that he had previously been able to maintain his sobriety for eight years.
Id. at 12-13. Reigle argues that he has both a strong need and a strong desire
for treatment, but the trial court ignored his testimony and imposed an
aggregate sentence inconsistent with his rehabilitative needs. Id. Additionally,
Reigle argues that the court did not adequately state its reasoning on the
record. Id. at 13-14. Finally, Reigle argues that his aggregate sentence
-6-
J-A17015-21
exceeded the recommendation of the probation department, and was the
longest period of incarceration he has ever served. Id. at 15.
At the revocation hearing, the court noted that Reigle had absconded,
failed to report, left treatment against medical advice, and been consistently
noncompliant. See Trial Ct. Op., at 5. The court reemphasized that Reigle had
four cases and had been informed what would happen the last time he had
violated his probation. Id. In its opinion, the court explained further:
From the facts of the case and this [c]ourt’s reasons set out
on the record, it is apparent that this [c]ourt properly
sentenced [Reigle] to confinement. [Reigle] was convicted
of another crime, flight to avoid apprehension, to which
[Reigle] pled guilty on December 14, 2020. [Reigle] has
multiple criminal matters open before this [c]ourt,
therefore, [Reigle]’s contention that there is no undue risk
that he will commit another crime if he were sentenced to a
period of probation or partial confinement is unsupported by
the record. While [Reigle] disputes the facts that were
introduced, [Reigle] failed to report and the lengths to
apprehend [Reigle] were extraordinary so it is this [c]ourt’s
belief that [Reigle] would flee again if given the opportunity.
Finally, when this [c]ourt sentenced [Reigle] previously,
[Reigle] was warned that he would be imprisoned if he
violated his probation again, so a term of imprisonment was
necessary to vindicate the authority of this [c]ourt.
Id. at 6.
The court appropriately considered Reigle’s criminal history and recent
probation violations. See id. Reigle had been warned that if he violated his
probation again, he would be subject to a period of incarceration. Reigle then,
once again, violated his probation. Given that this was a probation revocation,
the court specifically noted the factors it was to consider pursuant to 42
-7-
J-A17015-21
Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c): Reigle was convicted of another crime; his repeated
conduct indicated that it was likely he would commit another crime if he was
imprisoned; and considering the court’s warning at Reigle’s last probation
violation hearing, prison time served to vindicate the authority of the court.
We are satisfied that it considered Reigle’s rehabilitative needs, given the
history of the court resentencing him multiple times, following revocation, to
probation with conditions that he follow drug and alcohol treatment
recommendations. Nor can we say that the court abused its discretion in
determining the length of the sentence, in view of Reigle’s history. We will not
disturb the court’s sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/21/21
-8-