OPINION
NIX, Chief Justice.
Petitioner, appellee, after receiving a sentence imposed by the trial court of 50 to 100 years, was successful in an appeal of that judgment of sentence to the Superior Court. The Superior Court vacated the sentence imposed by the trial court and remanded the cause for resentencing. 367 Pa.Super. 648, 528 A.2d 257 (1987). The Commonwealth sought review of the Superior Court’s decision by filing a petition for allowance of appeal to this Court. On February 17, 1988, this Court granted the Commonwealth’s request. Thereafter on March 29, 1988, petitioner filed a motion to quash the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the request to quash the appeal was appropriately lodged. We therefore enter an order quashing this appeal and rendering moot the arguments presented by the parties relating to the issues raised by the decision of the Superior Court.1
[140]*140Petitioner, Charles R.T. Jones, entered pleas of guilty before the trial court on October 11, 1985. These pleas were entered to 21 counts of sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c), 20 counts of obscene and other sexual materials, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5903, and 21 counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123. On May 13, 1986, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling 50 to 100 years.2 The request for reconsideration of the sentences was denied after hearing. The numerous incidents giving rise to these charges occurred over a six-month period in 1984 and involved 14 male children ranging in age from 4 to 14 years. The minors engaged in oral sex with each other as well as with petitioner. Occasionally petitioner photographed some of these encounters. At the time of these incidents petitioner was 38 years of age and had no other criminal record. There is no allegation that any of these encounters were accomplished by force or threats of force.3 In justifying the sentence imposed the trial court indicated, in a memorandum opinion, “[i]n light of the severity of the crimes, their multiplicity, the victims being young boys, and having occurred over a long period of time and the resultant harm, the Court found nothing manifestly excessive in the sentences imposed — ” Slip op. at 3, No. 185/1985 (Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County, Aug. 21, 1986). In vacating the trial court’s decision and remanding the cause for resentencing, the Superi- or Court explained its action as follows:
[141]*141In determining sentence, the court is to be guided by the following, as provided in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b):
General standards. — In selecting from the alternatives set forth in subsection (a) the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.
“A sentence must be imposed based on the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the gravity of the offense, the need of the public for protection and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Simpson, 353 Pa.Super. 474, 478, 510 A.2d 760, 762 (1986) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
This general principle was not followed by the trial court since its focus was nearly exclusively upon the need to punish and the harm caused to the victims. We find the lower court did not take adequate consideration of the appellant’s background, his crime-free adult record, the relatively short time span during which the crimes occurred, his undisputed mental illness and expression of remorse, and the prospects of treatment of appellant’s illness. The lower court may not totally ignore evidence which suggests that appellant, in a reasonable period of time and under proper treatment, may return to society as a contributing member. Slip op. at 4, No. 1433 (Superi- or Court, March 18, 1982).
This opinion virtually paraphrases the direction of this Court set forth in Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 133, 351 A.2d 650, 657 (1976).
The sentence must be imposed for the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1321(b) (Supp.1975). At least two factors are crucial to such determination — the particular circumstances of the [142]*142offense and the character of the defendant____ We hold that ... the sentencing court must at least consider these two factors in its sentencing determination. Failure to give such individualized consideration requires that these sentences be vacated.
As previously stated, the question we are called upon to decide is whether or not this Court is vested with the authority to further review this matter. In this case there is no question as to the legality of the sentence imposed. The issue centers upon the appropriateness of the trial court’s exercise of discretion. One of the most important functions performed by a trial judge is the fashioning of the sanction to be imposed for those who are convicted of violating our laws. Traditionally, the deference to the sentencing judge’s discretion in such matters has been recognized. Commonwealth v. Plank, 498 Pa. 144, 445 A.2d 491 (1982); Commonwealth v. Williams, 456 Pa. 550, 317 A.2d 250 (1974); Commonwealth v. Lee, 450 Pa. 152, 299 A.2d 640 (1973); Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972). The goal to be achieved in the sentencing decision must accommodate a number of different objectives. The trial court is required to be fair to the offender but at the same time protect society and vindicate the victim. The sentencing decision focuses on the well-recognized concerns for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. In dealing with such an equation, reasonable men can obviously differ and thus the law has seized upon the wise decision to give great deference to the trial judge’s decision in this area.4 Commonwealth v. Martin, supra.
Our statute provides an absolute right to the defendant or the Commonwealth to appeal the legality of a sentence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(a). However, the statutory scheme recognizes the uniqueness of the exercise of discretion that is encompassed in the sentencing decision. Section [143]*1439781(b) provides the defendant or the Commonwealth with only a limited appeal in an attack upon the discretionary aspects of a legal sentence to the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction in the matter.5 Thus the statutory law reflects the long-standing case law, recognizing that the trial court’s prerogative in sentencing should not be unduly fettered. Commonwealth v. Green, 494 Pa. 406, 431 A.2d 918 (1981); Commonwealth v. Sutley, 474 Pa.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
NIX, Chief Justice.
Petitioner, appellee, after receiving a sentence imposed by the trial court of 50 to 100 years, was successful in an appeal of that judgment of sentence to the Superior Court. The Superior Court vacated the sentence imposed by the trial court and remanded the cause for resentencing. 367 Pa.Super. 648, 528 A.2d 257 (1987). The Commonwealth sought review of the Superior Court’s decision by filing a petition for allowance of appeal to this Court. On February 17, 1988, this Court granted the Commonwealth’s request. Thereafter on March 29, 1988, petitioner filed a motion to quash the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the request to quash the appeal was appropriately lodged. We therefore enter an order quashing this appeal and rendering moot the arguments presented by the parties relating to the issues raised by the decision of the Superior Court.1
[140]*140Petitioner, Charles R.T. Jones, entered pleas of guilty before the trial court on October 11, 1985. These pleas were entered to 21 counts of sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c), 20 counts of obscene and other sexual materials, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5903, and 21 counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123. On May 13, 1986, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling 50 to 100 years.2 The request for reconsideration of the sentences was denied after hearing. The numerous incidents giving rise to these charges occurred over a six-month period in 1984 and involved 14 male children ranging in age from 4 to 14 years. The minors engaged in oral sex with each other as well as with petitioner. Occasionally petitioner photographed some of these encounters. At the time of these incidents petitioner was 38 years of age and had no other criminal record. There is no allegation that any of these encounters were accomplished by force or threats of force.3 In justifying the sentence imposed the trial court indicated, in a memorandum opinion, “[i]n light of the severity of the crimes, their multiplicity, the victims being young boys, and having occurred over a long period of time and the resultant harm, the Court found nothing manifestly excessive in the sentences imposed — ” Slip op. at 3, No. 185/1985 (Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County, Aug. 21, 1986). In vacating the trial court’s decision and remanding the cause for resentencing, the Superi- or Court explained its action as follows:
[141]*141In determining sentence, the court is to be guided by the following, as provided in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b):
General standards. — In selecting from the alternatives set forth in subsection (a) the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.
“A sentence must be imposed based on the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the gravity of the offense, the need of the public for protection and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Simpson, 353 Pa.Super. 474, 478, 510 A.2d 760, 762 (1986) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
This general principle was not followed by the trial court since its focus was nearly exclusively upon the need to punish and the harm caused to the victims. We find the lower court did not take adequate consideration of the appellant’s background, his crime-free adult record, the relatively short time span during which the crimes occurred, his undisputed mental illness and expression of remorse, and the prospects of treatment of appellant’s illness. The lower court may not totally ignore evidence which suggests that appellant, in a reasonable period of time and under proper treatment, may return to society as a contributing member. Slip op. at 4, No. 1433 (Superi- or Court, March 18, 1982).
This opinion virtually paraphrases the direction of this Court set forth in Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118, 133, 351 A.2d 650, 657 (1976).
The sentence must be imposed for the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1321(b) (Supp.1975). At least two factors are crucial to such determination — the particular circumstances of the [142]*142offense and the character of the defendant____ We hold that ... the sentencing court must at least consider these two factors in its sentencing determination. Failure to give such individualized consideration requires that these sentences be vacated.
As previously stated, the question we are called upon to decide is whether or not this Court is vested with the authority to further review this matter. In this case there is no question as to the legality of the sentence imposed. The issue centers upon the appropriateness of the trial court’s exercise of discretion. One of the most important functions performed by a trial judge is the fashioning of the sanction to be imposed for those who are convicted of violating our laws. Traditionally, the deference to the sentencing judge’s discretion in such matters has been recognized. Commonwealth v. Plank, 498 Pa. 144, 445 A.2d 491 (1982); Commonwealth v. Williams, 456 Pa. 550, 317 A.2d 250 (1974); Commonwealth v. Lee, 450 Pa. 152, 299 A.2d 640 (1973); Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972). The goal to be achieved in the sentencing decision must accommodate a number of different objectives. The trial court is required to be fair to the offender but at the same time protect society and vindicate the victim. The sentencing decision focuses on the well-recognized concerns for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. In dealing with such an equation, reasonable men can obviously differ and thus the law has seized upon the wise decision to give great deference to the trial judge’s decision in this area.4 Commonwealth v. Martin, supra.
Our statute provides an absolute right to the defendant or the Commonwealth to appeal the legality of a sentence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(a). However, the statutory scheme recognizes the uniqueness of the exercise of discretion that is encompassed in the sentencing decision. Section [143]*1439781(b) provides the defendant or the Commonwealth with only a limited appeal in an attack upon the discretionary aspects of a legal sentence to the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction in the matter.5 Thus the statutory law reflects the long-standing case law, recognizing that the trial court’s prerogative in sentencing should not be unduly fettered. Commonwealth v. Green, 494 Pa. 406, 431 A.2d 918 (1981); Commonwealth v. Sutley, 474 Pa. 256, 378 A.2d 780 (1977); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 377 A.2d 140 (1977). Most pertinent to our instant inquiry, the legislature, in 9781(f), has expressly prohibited an appeal by either the Commonwealth or the defense relating to [144]*144the “discretionary aspects of the sentence beyond the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction for such appeals.” See also, Commonwealth v. Parrish, 515 Pa. 297, 528 A.2d 151 (1987).
It is to be noted that the concern expressed by the Superior Court in this matter was that the trial court may have focused “nearly exclusively” upon the need to punish for the harm caused to the victims, and that in doing so proper consideration was not given to the mental illness under which petitioner labored at the time of these incidents and the prospects of treatment which petitioner was receiving for the malady. Nothing in the order of the Superior Court would preclude the trial court from reinstituting the same sentence if indeed that court did weigh those factors in arriving at the sentence imposed. The order of the Superior Court should not be viewed as usurping the trial court’s exercise of discretion, but rather as attempting to assure that the trial judge properly weighed all of the relevant facts upon which the decision should have been made. In any event it is clear that under the statutory law we are without jurisdiction to provide a further review.
Accordingly, the motion to quash the appeal is granted.
STOUT, former Justice, did not participate in the decision of this case.
McDERMOTT, J., files a concurring opinion.
LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion.
McDERMOTT, Justice,