Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Com. v. Alviso, S.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 1539 WDA 2013
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; August 7, 2014; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Sara Alviso appeals the judgment of sentence from the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, which was issued on September 4, 2013, following the revocation of her probation/parole due to violations, including failure to report and make required payments. She challenges the aggregate sentence imposed, arguing it is excessive and that the court did not adequately explain its reasoning for the sentence. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decision, noting that Alviso's appeal primarily contests the sentence length, while her argument regarding the reasons for the sentence was not included in her statement of questions involved, which is required under Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). The court finds that she preserved her right to appeal by filing a timely notice and post-sentence motion, including a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement. However, it concludes that Alviso did not present a substantial question for review, as her claim of excessiveness does not allege a violation of a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or demonstrate how it contravenes fundamental sentencing norms. Consequently, even if a substantial question existed, the appellate court finds her claims meritless, affirming that sentencing is within the discretion of the sentencing judge and will not be overturned absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion in a sentencing context requires the appellant to demonstrate that the sentencing court either ignored or misapplied the law, acted with bias or prejudice, or reached an unreasonable decision, as established in Commonwealth v. Glass. The trial court provided a detailed explanation for its sentencing decision in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, including the rationale for recommending a motivational boot camp for the appellant. Prior to sentencing, the court reviewed a presentence investigation report and was aware of the appellant's technical violations, which reflected a disregard for authority rather than a criminogenic mindset. The recommendation for boot camp was seen as an opportunity for remediation rather than an indication of bias or prejudice. The court referenced its own remarks during the sentencing hearing, noting the absence of new charges but acknowledging the appellant's failure to comply with previous terms. Additionally, the court cited Section 9771(c) of the Sentencing Code, which outlines conditions under which total confinement may be imposed. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion in its sentencing decision, affirming the judgment.