Commonwealth v. Kaminski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Kaminski

368 A.2d 776, 244 Pa. Super. 388, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2228

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 15, 1976

Docket1078

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 368 A.2d 776 (Commonwealth v. Kaminski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Kaminski, 368 A.2d 776, 244 Pa. Super. 388, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2228 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

JACOBS, Judge:

This is an appeal from judgments of sentence imposed on appellant Grace Ellen Kaminski following her pleas of guilty to two counts of theft by unlawful taking or [390]*390disposition ¹ and to one count each of theft by deception,² forgery,³ and bad checks.⁴ The offenses occurred over a ten-month period and involved $923.05. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three to twelve months on the theft charges and three to twenty-three months on the forgery-bad checks charges. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

On this appeal appellant does not challenge the legality of the sentences nor the propriety of the procedure whereby they were imposed. Her sole complaint is that the sentences were too severe under the totality of the circumstances. In support of this claim, she lists the following reasons why the sentences are too severe :

“1) The criminal conduct of the.Defendant neither caused nor threatened serious bodily harm.

“2) The Defendant did not contemplate that her conduct would cause or threaten serious harm.

“3) The Defendant made full restitution.

“4) The Defendant was never in trouble before.

“5) The confinement of the Defendant would entail excessive hardship for her two children, Cindy, age 8, and Jackie, age 6, who are dependent on Defendant for their support.

“6) Defendant is currently employed.”

We first note that appellant does not claim that the trial court did not consider the above factors. Rather, her claim is that, in view of those factors, the sentences are excessive. Secondly, we note that appellant does not [391]*391claim that the sentences exceed the maximum permissible under the law.

It is well-settled that the sentence imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge, whose discretion in sentencing is very broad, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 456 Pa. 550, 317 A.2d 250 (1974); Commonwealth v. Cox, 441 Pa. 64, 270 A.2d 207 (1970); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 229 Pa.Super. 449, 323 A.2d 396 (1974). Additionally, we should not find an abuse of discretion in sentencing, provided that the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, unless the sentence imposed is so manifestly excessive as to inflict too severe a punishment. E. g., Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 235 Pa.Super. 185, 340 A.2d 515, allocatur refused, 235 Pa.Super. xxvii (1975).

Although we might have imposed different sentences on these facts, we are unable to conclude that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. And since our review reveals no abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the sentences which the trial court saw fit to impose.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which HOFFMAN, J., joins.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JACOBS, Judge:

This is an appeal from judgments of sentence imposed on appellant Grace Ellen Kaminski following her pleas of guilty to two counts of theft by unlawful taking or [390]*390disposition ¹ and to one count each of theft by deception,² forgery,³ and bad checks.⁴ The offenses occurred over a ten-month period and involved $923.05. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three to twelve months on the theft charges and three to twenty-three months on the forgery-bad checks charges. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

On this appeal appellant does not challenge the legality of the sentences nor the propriety of the procedure whereby they were imposed. Her sole complaint is that the sentences were too severe under the totality of the circumstances. In support of this claim, she lists the following reasons why the sentences are too severe :

“1) The criminal conduct of the.Defendant neither caused nor threatened serious bodily harm.

“2) The Defendant did not contemplate that her conduct would cause or threaten serious harm.

“3) The Defendant made full restitution.

“4) The Defendant was never in trouble before.

“5) The confinement of the Defendant would entail excessive hardship for her two children, Cindy, age 8, and Jackie, age 6, who are dependent on Defendant for their support.

“6) Defendant is currently employed.”

We first note that appellant does not claim that the trial court did not consider the above factors. Rather, her claim is that, in view of those factors, the sentences are excessive. Secondly, we note that appellant does not [391]*391claim that the sentences exceed the maximum permissible under the law.

It is well-settled that the sentence imposed upon a convicted defendant is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge, whose discretion in sentencing is very broad, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 456 Pa. 550, 317 A.2d 250 (1974); Commonwealth v. Cox, 441 Pa. 64, 270 A.2d 207 (1970); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 229 Pa.Super. 449, 323 A.2d 396 (1974). Additionally, we should not find an abuse of discretion in sentencing, provided that the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, unless the sentence imposed is so manifestly excessive as to inflict too severe a punishment. E. g., Commonwealth v. Person, 450 Pa. 1, 297 A.2d 460 (1972); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 235 Pa.Super. 185, 340 A.2d 515, allocatur refused, 235 Pa.Super. xxvii (1975).

Although we might have imposed different sentences on these facts, we are unable to conclude that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. And since our review reveals no abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the sentences which the trial court saw fit to impose.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which HOFFMAN, J., joins.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 A.2d 776, 244 Pa. Super. 388, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-kaminski-pasuperct-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack