sentencing in pennsylvania -

Sentencing in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing

Annual Report | 2009

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing2009 Annual Report

Sentencingin

Pennsylvania

Representative Frank Dermody, ChairSenator Mary Jo White, Vice-Chair

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

Location


009 Brumbaugh HallThe Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

408 Forum BuildingCapitol Complex

Harrisburg, PA 17120

PO Box 1200State College, PA 16804-1200

PO Box 1045Harrisburg, PA 17108-1045

814-863-2797 717-772-3776

SGS Web Help Desk: 814-867-1243 (statewide)

Sentencing Assistance / Questions814-863-5204 (Western Region) or 717-772-4122 (Eastern Region)

Mailing Address

Telephone

814-863-2129 717-772-8892Fax

Please visit the Commission’s web site for more detailed information.

Cover Photo Courtesy of Commonwealth Media Services

URL: http://pasentencing.us

The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is an agency of the General Assembly affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

009 Brumbaugh Hall University Park Campus PO Box 1200 State College, PA 16804-1200 Phone (814) 863-2797 Fax (814) 863-2129

408 Forum Building Capitol Complex PO Box 1045 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1045 Phone (717) 772-3776 Fax (717) 772-8892

PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCING http://pasentencing.us

July 1, 2010

The Honorable Members of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania The Honorable Ronald D. Castille, Chief Justice of Pennsylvania The Honorable Edward G. Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania The Citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

It is with great pleasure that we present the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing 2009 Annual Report. This report details the work of the Commission and its staff during 2009 and provides a review of sentencing practices and aggregate statewide sentencing data during the same calendar year. A total of 142,221 offenses with corresponding sentences were reported to the Commission by the Courts of Common Pleas through April 30, 2010, representing 98,737 criminal incidents. Sentences for calendar year 2009 reported on or after May 1, 2010 will be included in revised tables to be posted on the Commission’s web site in December 2010.

The Commission is indebted to court officials and practitioners throughout the Commonwealth who contributed their efforts and to the many agencies at both the state and local levels who partner with the Commission. The Commission also appreciates the work of members and staff. It recognizes the contributions of Commission members whose terms ended in 2009: Judge Jeffrey A. Manning, a court appointee from Allegheny County, and Judge Jeannine Turgeon, a court appointee from Dauphin County.

During 2009, the Commission undertook numerous projects. It completed its report of the Study on the Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences as directed by House Resolution 12 of 2007. In accordance with the enactment of Acts 81 and 83 of 2008, the Commission embarked on its new mandate to develop parole guidelines for both state and county paroling authorities, resentencing guidelines, and state recommitment ranges. Six major research projects are underway to examine sentencing policy and practices and the new areas of parole and resentencing. Extensive outreach activities included seminars on sentencing, SGS Web, the corrections and legislative reform packages, and many special presentations. SGS Web was updated to keep pace with changing technology. Data provision and impact analyses provided input on legislative proposals. The Commission worked toward making data sets available on-line for researchers and others so they can access and query aggregate sentencing information.

As an agency of the General Assembly, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is charged with the responsibility of serving as a clearinghouse and information center for the collection, preparation, and dissemination of information on Commonwealth sentencing practices, and with assisting courts and agencies in the development, maintenance, and coordination of sound sentencing policies. Pursuant to its new mandate, the Commission’s work will expand to include resentencing and parole in the future. We hope that the information contained in this report, as well as that available through our web site (http://pasentencing.us) and from our staff, will be used to promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully submitted,

Representative Frank Dermody Senator Mary Jo White Chair Vice Chair

Table of Contents

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table of ContentsPART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK ....................................................1 THE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................ 2 Legislative Mandate ........................................................................................................................................2 Duties of the Commission ..............................................................................................................................2 LegislativeAgencyBenefitingfromUniversityResources ............................................................................3 Composition ...................................................................................................................................................3 THE PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................ 4 Commissioners ...............................................................................................................................................4 Commission Members: 1979 to 2009 ...........................................................................................................5 Staff .................................................................................................................................................................6 THE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 7 Committees .....................................................................................................................................................7 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................8 Grants ..............................................................................................................................................................9 SGS Web .......................................................................................................................................................10 Major Highlights ........................................................................................................................................... 11 THE WORK ..........................................................................................................................12 Commission ..................................................................................................................................................12 Commission Meetings ...........................................................................................................................12 Commission Committee Highlights ......................................................................................................12 Supporting Criminal Justice Practitioners ....................................................................................................13 Seminars ................................................................................................................................................13 Sentencing / SGS Web Assistance ........................................................................................................14 Criminal Justice Advisory Boards .........................................................................................................15 NASC ....................................................................................................................................................15 Courses Taught ......................................................................................................................................15 Journal Publications ..............................................................................................................................15 Annual Villanova Sentencing Workshop ..............................................................................................15 Presentations .........................................................................................................................................16 Staff Committee Work ...........................................................................................................................17 Supporting Decision Makers ........................................................................................................................18 Testimony ..............................................................................................................................................18 Legislative Reports................................................................................................................................18 Research Bulletin ..................................................................................................................................18 Data and Information ............................................................................................................................18 Impact of Proposed Legislation ............................................................................................................18 Relevant Case Law ................................................................................................................................19 Legislation Enacted ...............................................................................................................................19 Reform Work .........................................................................................................................................19 Reform Work Groups ............................................................................................................................20 Research ................................................................................................................................................21 Responding to Initiatives: The Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences .................................23 House Resolution 12 of 2007 ................................................................................................................23 Advisory Committee .............................................................................................................................23 Who Receives the Mandatory Sentence? ..............................................................................................23 What Factors are Related to Recidivism? .............................................................................................24 Overall Findings ....................................................................................................................................25 Frequency of Mandatory Sentencing and Trends in Sentences Imposed ..........................................25 Processing of Mandatory Sentencing Cases .....................................................................................25 Effectiveness of Mandatory Sentencing ............................................................................................26 Policy Implications................................................................................................................................27 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................28

Annual Report | 2009

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table of Contents – continuedPART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS .....................................................................29 INTRODUCTION TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES ....................................................30 Sentencing Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................30 Guideline Editions ........................................................................................................................................30 Sentencing Alternatives ................................................................................................................................31 Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive ..........................................................................................................31 PlaceofConfinement/ParolingAuthority ...................................................................................................32 Enhancements ...............................................................................................................................................32 Mandatory Sentences ....................................................................................................................................32 Inchoate Offenses .........................................................................................................................................32 Conformity ....................................................................................................................................................33 Reporting Requirements ...............................................................................................................................33 DefiningaSentenceforReporting ...............................................................................................................33 QualifiersandDisclaimers ...........................................................................................................................33 AN OvERvIEW OF SENTENCING IN 2009 ...................................................................35 Sentences ......................................................................................................................................................35 Offenders ......................................................................................................................................................39 Conformity to Guidelines .............................................................................................................................40 County and State Intermediate Punishment Alternatives .............................................................................41 Economic Sanctions ......................................................................................................................................41 Juvenile Offenders ........................................................................................................................................41

PART III: DATA TABLES .......................................................................................43 Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County ..................................................................................................44 Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines ...........................................................................46 Table 3. Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines ...........................................................................47 Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County ......................................................................................................48 Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type .............................................................................................50 Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County ..........................................................................................52 Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only) ............................................................54 Table 7. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type ................................................................................56 Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County ............................................................58 Table 9. Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses...................................................................................................60 Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County .......................................................................62 Table 11. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (DUI Offenses Only) ...........................................64 Table12.PlaceofConfinementbyCounty(2tolessthan5YearMaximumSentence) ....................................66 Table13.PlaceofConfinementbyOffenseType(2tolessthan5YearMaximumSentence) ..........................68 Table 14. Percent Incarcerated by OGS and PRS ................................................................................................70 Table 15. Incarceration Sentences with Deadly Weapon Enhancements ............................................................71 Table16.MandatorySentencesbyOffenseType(ExcludingDrivingUndertheInfluence) .............................72 Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County .............................................................................................74 Table 18. Conformity to the Guidelines by Offense Type ...................................................................................76 Table 19. Conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Offenses..............................................................78 Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS .................................................................................80 Table 21. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison ....................................82 Table 22. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail .................................83 Table 23. State and County Intermediate Eligibility and Sentences ....................................................................84 Table 24. Type of Sentences Imposed by Sentencing Guideline Level ...............................................................85 Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score ..............................................86 Table 26. Economic Sanctions and Assessments .................................................................................................88 Table 27. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (Juvenile Offenders Only) ...................................89 Table28.SummaryofSentencesImposedbyAge[JuvenileOffendersOnly(<18YearsOld)] ........................89 Table29.SummaryofSentencesImposedbyCounty[JuvenileOffendersOnly(<18YearsOld)] ..................90 Table 30. Completed or Inchoate Offenses by Offense Type ..............................................................................92

Table of Contents

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table of Contents – continued

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................95 A. New Offenses .................................................................................................................................................96 B. Case Law Highlights - 2009 ..........................................................................................................................97 C. Sentencing Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................100 D. Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Provisions .....................................................................102 E. 6th Edition, Revised Guideline Matrix ........................................................................................................106 F. Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................................107 G.PACountyClassification,2009 ...................................................................................................................108

PART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

2 Part I: The Commission and Its Work

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng THE ORGANIZATION

Legislative MandateThe primary purpose of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing is to create and maintain a consistent and rational statewide sentencing policy. Created in 1978 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly (42 Pa.C.S. §2154), the Commission is charged with adopting guidelines that promote fairer and more uniform sentencing throughout the Commonwealth. It does this by providing every judge with a common reference point for sentencing similar offenders convicted of similar crimes.

Acts 81 and 83 of 2008, effective November 24, 2008, direct the Commission to develop parole guidelines to be considered by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and any other paroling authority (42 Pa.C.S. §2154.5). Additionally, guidelines are to be developed for resentencing and for recommitment ranges. This process enhances accountability and transparency, and more closely aligns state and county parole procedures.

Duties of the CommissionFirst and foremost, the Commission was created to develop sentencing guidelines that:

Specify a range of sentences applicable for crimes • of a given degree of gravity;

Specify a range of sentences of increased severity • for defendants previously convicted of one or more felony or misdemeanor offenses, or convicted of a crime involving the use of a deadly weapon; and

Prescribe variations from the range on account of • aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In addition, the Commission was empowered to:

Establish a research and development program;•

Function as an information clearinghouse on • Commonwealth sentencing practices;

Serve in a consulting capacity to state courts;•

Collect and disseminate information regarding the • sentences actually imposed and the effectiveness of sentences;

Make recommendations to the General Assembly • concerning modification or enactment of sentencing and correctional statutes to carry out an effective, humane, and rational sentencing policy; and

Systematically monitor compliance with the • guidelines and with mandatory sentencing laws.

With Acts 81 and 83 of 2008, the Commission has been charged to:

Develop state and county parole guidelines as • well as resentencing guidelines;

Develop state recommitment ranges; and •

Collect data and information to systematically • monitor and report on conformity to parole and resentencing guidelines.

PART I: THE COMMISSION AND ITS WORK

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

3Annual Report | 2009

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Legislative Agency Benefiting From University ResourcesThe Commission was created by and remains closely tied to the state legislature. In 1986, it was designated an agency of the General Assembly. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees review its regulations. The Commission’s members, appointed from the ranks of judges, legislators, and criminal justice professionals, provide oversight and direction.

The Penn State ConnectionHeadquarters are housed on the University Park Campus of The Pennsylvania State University under an agreement first established in 1981. Penn State provides office space and administrative support at no cost, and the Commission contracts with faculty and staff to conduct sentencing-related research.

In return, the Commission provides opportunities for students to develop research and practical skills; a full-time research associate to assist Penn State faculty and students using Commission data; and 45 percent of the salary for a tenured faculty member to undertake Commission research, as well as two half-time graduate research assistants and two part-time undergraduate research assistantships. Penn State students also benefit from experience brought to the classroom by the Commission’s executive director who regularly teaches courses on campus.

Duquesne and VillanovaWorking relationships with the Law Schools at Duquesne University and Villanova University similarly enhance the education of law students. By agreement with each university, the Commission provides financial assistance for student research and the executive director’s time in the classroom as adjunct faculty. The Commission gains additional support for its research efforts and access to meeting space and video conferencing for workshops, training, and continuing education in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas.

Chri

s Ko

leno

, 200

5Composition The Commission, by statute, consists of 11 members. Commission members are appointed for two-year terms and serve without compensation. They serve until a replacement is named.

• The Chief Justice of Pennsylvania selects four judges.

• The President Pro Tempore of the Senate appoints two senators (one from each caucus).

• The Speaker of the House of Representatives appoints two members (one from each caucus).

• The Governor chooses three members and must include a district attorney, a defense attorney, and a professor of law or criminologist.

Additionally, three ex officio members were added to the Commission (42 Pa.C.S. §2154(a.1)): the Secretary of Corrections, the Victim Advocate, and the Chairman of the Board of Probation and Parole.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

MembersProfessor Steven L. Chanenson Villanova University School of LawJanuary 2002 – present

Sen. Jay Costa, Jr. Allegheny County (D)February 1997 – present

District Attorney Marjorie J. FoxGreene CountyJune 2007 – present

Judge Linda K. M. LudgateBerks CountyApril 2008 – present

Judge Jill E. RangosAllegheny CountyApril 2009 – present

Defense Attorney Marc S. Raspanti Philadelphia CountyJune 2007 – present

Rep. Douglas G. Reichley Berks/Lehigh Counties (R)January 2007 – present

President Judge Harold E. Woelfel, Jr. Snyder and Union CountiesApril 2009 - present

Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper Philadelphia CountyApril 2006 – present

Commissioners Chair Rep. Frank Dermody, Allegheny County (D) Commissioner, January 1991 – present, Chair since 1997.

Vice-Chair Sen. Mary Jo White, Venango County (R) Commissioner, March 2003 – present, Vice-Chair since 2007.

THE PEOPLE

Ex Officio MembersPA Board of Probation and ParoleCatherine C. McVey, Chairman

PA Department of CorrectionsJeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Secretary

PA Office of Victim AdvocateCarol L. Lavery, Victim Advocate

Former Commission MembersJudge Jeffrey A. ManningAllegheny CountyJune 2002 to April 2009

Judge Jeannine TurgeonDauphin CountyApril 2003 to April 2009

———

———


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ngRepresentatives: DemocratNorman S. Berson 1979Joseph M. Hoeffel 1983Paul F. McHale 1983Michael E. Bortner 1987Frank Dermody (VC, C) 1991

Representatives: RepublicanAnthony J. Scirica 1979Terrence F. McVerry 1979Daniel F. Clark 1989Brett O. Feese 1995William I. Gabig 2001Mark S. McNaughton 2003Douglas G. Reichley 2007

Senators: DemocratJames R. Kelley 1979Hardy Williams 1983John W. Regoli 1987H. Craig Lewis 1989Michael E. Bortner 1991Jack Wagner 1995Jay Costa, Jr. 1997

Senators: RepublicanGeorge W. Gekas 1979Stewart J. Greenleaf 1983David W. Heckler (VC, C) 1995Jeffrey E. Piccola (VC) 1997Mary Jo White (VC) 2003

Judicial Appointment 1Curtis C. Carson 1979Charles L. Durham 1985John L. Braxton (C) 1991Charles C. Brown, Jr. (VC) 1995Jeannine Turgeon 2003Harold F. Woelfel, Jr. 2009

Judicial Appointment 2Richard P. Conaboy (C) 1979Lynne M. Abraham (VC) 1981Theodore A. McKee (VC, C) 1986James A. Lineberger 1995Renee Cardwell Hughes 1998Sheila A. Woods-Skipper 2006

Judicial Appointment 3Merna B. Marshall 1979Anthony J. Scirica (C) 1980Melvin G. Levy (VC, C) 1985Ricardo C. Jackson 1992Robert E. Dauer 1997Jeffrey A. Manning 2002Jill E. Rangos 2009

Judicial Appointment 4John W. O’Brien (C) 1979Robert E. Dauer (C) 1990Cynthia Baldwin 1996Gary P. Caruso 1998Michael T. Conahan 2002Gary P. Caruso 2004Linda K. M. Ludgate 2008

District AttorneyRobert E. Colville 1979Frank Hazel 1981Richard A. Lewis 1983Theresa Ferris-Dukovich 1990Merritt E. “Ted” McKnight (VC) 1996Marjorie J. Fox 2007

Defense AttorneyMichael J. Minney 1979Charles F. Scarlata 1981Warren H. Spencer 1985John P. Moses 1990William T. C. Tully 1996Marc S. Raspanti 2007

ProfessorAlfred S. Pelaez (VC) 1979David A. Jones 1981Alfred Blumstein 1986Laurie Magid 1996Steven L. Chanenson 2002

Ex Officio: PA Board of Probation & Parole ChairmanCatherine C. McVey 2008

Ex Officio: PA Department of Corrections SecretaryJeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D. 2008

Ex Officio: PA Victim AdvocateCarol L. Lavery 2008

Executive DirectorJohn H. Kramer 1979Mark H. Bergstrom 1998

(C) and (VC) indicate that these members served, sometime during their tenure, as chair or vice-chair, respectively.

Commission Members: 1979 to 2009


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

StaffExecutiveMark H. Bergstrom, executive director Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D., deputy director Joseph Sabino Mistick, Esq., part-time Commission counsel

AdministrativeJodi R. Ripka, fiscal/office managerCatherine W. Dittman, staff assistantTrevor D. Squillario, system administrator

Information AccessJoan F. Lisle, managerHaiou Hu, project associate

Data ManagementCarol A. Zeiss, managerLinda M. Bell, SGS Web supportBrenda C. Cooper, project associateRobert E. Probst, lead data input specialistBarbara R. Boob, data input specialist

Outreach and Policy Support*Diane E. Shoop, Ph.D., managerCarrie L. Peters, sentencing policy specialist*Helene J. Placey, sentencing policy specialist

ResearchCynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D., research directorLeigh A. Tinik, research support associateR. Barry Ruback, Ph.D., faculty researcher

In addition to the full-time University Park and Harrisburg-based staff listed, the Commission employed graduate and undergraduate research assistants from the Crime, Law and Justice Program of Penn State’s Department of Sociology; legal research assistants from Duquesne and Villanova Universities; and part-time administrative staff.

The Commission also provided contracted services for collaborative projects with statewide application through grant-related positions.

*Harrisburg-based positions

PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON SENTENCINGORGANIZATIONAL CHART

PA Commission on Sentencing

Rep. Frank Dermody, ChairSen. Mary Jo White, Vice Chair

Mark H. Bergstrom

Executive Director

Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

DATA MANAGEMENT

Carol Zeiss, Manager

Barbara BoobData Input

Linda Bell

SGS Web Support

Brenda Cooper

Data Technologist

Robert Probst

Lead Data Input

INFORMATION ACCESS

Joan Lisle, Manager

Haiou Hu

Data Analyst

RESEARCH

Cynthia Kempinen, Ph.D. Director

Leigh Tinik

Research Associate

PSU Research Partnership

OUTREACH & POLICY SUPPORT

Diane Shoop, Ph.D.Manager

Helene Placey

Sentencing Policy Specialist

Carrie Peters

Sentencing Policy Specialist

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

Jodi Ripka, Office Manager

Trevor Squillario, System Administrator

Catherine Dittman

Staff Assistant

Joseph Sabino Mistick, Esq.

Counsel

Part-Time Staff


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ngCommitteesBudget and Management CommitteeRole: Oversees budget and personnel issues; establishes general policies and promulgates rules and regulations for the Commission as necessary. Reviews contracts, leases, and cooperative agreements with government agencies and private contractors for services, personnel, and equipment required by the Commission.

Members Rep. Dermody, chair Sen. White, vice-chair Sen. Costa Rep. Reichley

Data Management and Information Access CommitteeRole: Oversees data collection and management via SGS Web, Release of Information Policy, sentencing simulations, projections and analysis, and access to sentencing information. Monitors information on Commonwealth sentencing practices and publishes data on sentencing processes and sentences actually imposed. Through October, committee responsibilities included: oversee education, outreach, and consultation to state judiciary on sound sentencing practices and monitor compliance with the guidelines and mandatory sentencing laws. These responsibilities moved to Policy Committee.

Members (January – April) Judge Woods-Skipper, chair District Attorney Fox Judge Ludgate

(May – December) Attorney Raspanti, chair District Attorney Fox Judge Ludgate

Policy CommitteeRole: Reviews sentencing, correctional, and parole statutes and makes recommendations to the General Assembly to maintain an effective, humane, and rational sentencing and parole policy. Oversees a clearinghouse and information center for Commonwealth sentencing and parole practices. Reviews appellate court decisions and legislation. Coordinates the development and implementation of guidelines for fines and economic sanctions, sentencing, resentencing, and parole; the development of recommitment ranges; and the identification of eligible offenders for County Intermediate Punishment, State Intermediate Punishment, and Motivational Boot Camp. Oversees sentencing and corrections reform work groups and conducts informational meetings and public hearings.

Able to invite witnesses and request evidence when reviewing appellate court decisions and pending sentencing- and parole-related legislation. All Commission members serve on the Policy Committee, which operates as a ‘committee of the whole.’

Members (January – April) Judge Manning, chair Sen. Costa, vice-chair Rep. Reichley, vice-chair all other Commission members ex officio members

(May – December) Judge Woods-Skipper, chair Sen. Costa, vice-chair Rep. Reichley, vice-chair all other Commission members ex officio members

Research CommitteeRole: Oversees the Commission’s research agenda and legislative mandates, including ongoing evaluation of State Intermediate Punishment, Motivational Boot Camp, and Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program. Required by statute to monitor, evaluate, and produce alternating biennial reports on these programs. Conducts reseach as required through House or Senate Resolutions such as HR 12 of 2007. Disseminates research data and sentencing information on incapacitation, recidivism, deterrence and overall effectiveness of sentences imposed.

Members (January – April) Professor Chanenson, chair Attorney Raspanti Judge Turgeon

(May – December) Professor Chanenson, chair Judge Rangos President Judge Woelfel

THE INFRASTRUCTURE


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

The Commission received a state appropriation of $1.45 million for fiscal year 2008/2009, which was more than 60% of the total operating budget. Federal grants

for specific projects comprised the remainder, as the following graphic and chart illustrate.

During fiscal year 2008/2009, the Commission expended $1.5 million in state appropriations and related matching funds in order to undertake its work. Personnel costs consumed the largest proportion of funds.

A balance of the fiscal year 2007/2008 appropriation ($345,000) was transferred to the fiscal year 2008/2009 operating budget to support several multi-year data projects. This is not included in the chart to the left.

State Federal Total Fiscal Year Appropriation Grant Funds Operating Budget

2001/2002 $935,000 $983,961 $1,918,961 2002/2003 $992,000 $1,014,000 $2,006,000 2003/2004 $992,000 $1,150,146 $2,141,146 2004/2005 $992,000 $1,435,904 $2,427,904 2005/2006 $1,120,000 $1,138,912 $2,258,912 2006/2007 $1,120,000 $1,338,349 $2,458,349 2007/2008 $1,470,000 $1,117,447 $2,587,447 2008/2009 $1,451,000 $829,613 $2,280,613

PA Commission on SentencingState Appropriations and Federal Grants:

Fiscal Years 2001/2002 to 2008/2009

Budget

Consultants, 4%

Operating, 12%

Other/Match, 4%

Travel, 8%

PA Commission on Sentencing State Appropriations by Category: FiscalYear 2008/2009

Salaries, 72%

Consultants, 4%

Operating, 12%

Other/Match, 4%

Travel, 8%

PA Commission on Sentencing State Appropriations by Category: FiscalYear 2008/2009


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Grants

During calendar year 2009, the Commission received $829,613 in Byrne Justice Grants (JAG) and National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grants. Of these grants, $429,119 were directly for PCS use, and

$400,494 (48%) supported Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency activities (noted by ‘*’). Grant funds went to the following projects:

Grant Name Amount PCS usage: Enhanced Criminal Justice Advisory Board Support $ 109,833 Intermediate Punishment Technical Assistance and Training $ 148,156 SGS Web Migration $ 126,220 SGS Web Reform Legislation $ 44,910 Subtotal $ 429,119 PCCD usage*: Corrections Policy Research Support $ 139,993 County Integration Architect Project $ 123,177 Intermediate Punishment Technical Assistance and Training $ 137,324 Subtotal $ 400,494

Grand Total $ 829,613

Grants awarded to the Commission often fund joint efforts with other agencies, as the following list of grants received in 2009 demonstrates:

Corrections Policy Research Support* – provides • for a research position at PCCD and contracted research services. Both agencies benefit from the resulting policy analysis, statistical analysis, and ad hoc research projects.

County Integration Architect Project* – PCCD-• based position which provides review and oversight capability for state and federal grant funds earmarked for integration of various county and local public safety and homeland security systems across the Commonwealth.

Enhanced Criminal Justice Advisory Board Support • – provides additional support for sentencing-related activities directed to counties. It includes development of data and information to support policy initiatives, enhancement of SGS Web application functions, and increased training and consulting efforts directly with counties.

Intermediate Punishment Technical Assistance • and Training* – provides support for both the Commission on Sentencing and the Commission on Crime and Delinquency. It funds four positions at PCCD to work with county Criminal Justice Advisory Boards and one position to work as a behavioral health consultant in the area of RIP/D&A. It partially supports a position at the Commission on Sentencing for educational seminars, assistance, and support related to sentencing and sentencing guidelines.

SGS Web Migration – provides support for the • Sentencing Guideline Software Web-Based application, used by counties to determine sentence recommendations and report sentences imposed to the Commission in an accurate and timely manner via Pennsylvania’s Justice Network (JNET). Funds were used to migrate the application to .net platform and to migrate the database from Oracle to SQL Server.

SGS Web Reform Legislation - provided support • to modify SGS Web Guideline Software to capture information required by the reform legislation. Specifically, data related to RRRI and county reentry were added.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

SGS WebThe Commission’s legislative mandate to collect and disseminate information on Commonwealth sentencing practices shaped the progression of gathering sentencing information. The original paper forms were phased out, first by the PC-based Sentencing Guideline Software introduced in 1998, and more effectively by the web-based software, SGS Web, introduced four years later in 2002.

Benefiting from the secure environment available at Pennsylvania’s Justice Network (JNET), SGS Web allows on-line calculation of the sentencing guidelines for judges’ consideration at the time of sentence. Retrieving offense information from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) improves efficiency and accuracy. Effective July 1, 2005, SGS Web officially replaced paper forms to fulfill the county requirement to report sentences to the Commission.

Users of SGS Web can quickly determine the correct guideline recommendations and print a guideline sentence form for use by the court. The law requires these forms to be submitted to correctional facilities when offenders are committed. Electronic reporting is more efficient, accuracy is improved, and data are available for use in much less time than under previous paper-based systems.

Today, SGS Web serves as the Commission’s calculation and collection tool and its repository for sentencing data. The importance of this data collection effort cannot be underestimated. The Commission uses sentencing data to determine compliance; to project impacts of changes in the law, policy, or practice; to assess the impact of guidelines and mandatory sentences; to monitor sentencing trends; and to project the impact of policy changes on prison and jail populations.

Screen Shot of SGS Web’s Digital Dashboard


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS

Year Event Guide

lineEd

itions

LegislationIm

pacts

Commission

Other

1978 Act 319 created the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing1979 John H. Kramer, Ph.D., appointed 1st executive director of Commission1982 1st Edition Guidelines adopted, effective July 221982 Commission begins collecting sentencing information from the courts1983 1st Edition Guidelines amended, effective June 31986 1st Edition Guidelines amended, effective January 21986 2nd Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June 51986 Act 41 designated Commission an agency of the General Assembly

1987 Pa. Supreme Court invalidated all guidelines due to procedural error in 1981 when legislature rejected the Commission's initial set of guidelines

1988 Guidelines re-promulgated and 3rd Edition Guidelines adopted, effective April 25

1988 Commission designated a Legislative Service Agency

1990Act 215 established Motivational Boot Camp. Commission mandated to provide annual evaluation and report to the legislature

1990Acts 193 and 201 established County Intermediate Punishment as sentencing alternative

19913rd Edition Guidelines amended to incorporate Motivational Boot Camp, effective August 9

1994 4th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective August 131997 5th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June 131998 Mark H. Bergstrom appointed executive director of the Commission1998 SGS introduced1999 Formal Release of Information Policy developed2002 SGS Web available as part of Pennsylvania's Justice Network2003 Commission designated a Pennsylvania Criminal Justice Agency

2004 Act 112 established State Intermediate Punishment as a new sentencing alternative

2005 Electronic reporting of sentences to Commission required (July 1)

2005Commission mandated to provide evaluation and report to the legislature on State Intermediate Punishment and Motivational Boot Camp on alternating years

2005 6th Edition Guidelines adopted, effective June 32005 Web-based sentencing simulation model development initiated

2007Commission opened 2nd office located in 408 Forum Building, Capitol Complex, Harrisburg

2007 Act 37 required Commission to adopt guidelines for fines2008 Records retention policy adopted2008 Right to Know Policy adopted

2008Acts 81 and 83 mandated development of parole and resentencing guidelines and recommitment ranges, systematic monitoring of compliance, and reporting on same

2008 6th Edition, Revised Guidelines adopted, effective December 5

2009Study of the Impact and Use of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing submitted to PA House of Representatives as required by HR 12 of 2007


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng CommissionCommission MeetingsThe Commission is required by statute to meet at least four times per year and not less than semiannually. These are public meetings preceded by a work session.

During 2009, four Commission meetings were held in the Commission’s Harrisburg Office, located in the Capitol Complex: February 5, May 21, August 20, and December 10.

Commission Committee HighlightsBudget and Management Committee

Worked to continue service and staffing • throughout the budget impasse.

Applied for and was granted ARRA funding to • continue its work on reform activities in 2010.

Data Management and Information Access CommitteeOversaw training, collection, and dissemination • of sentencing data, and the compilation of sentencing information.

SGS Web was updated to reflect changes to • statute and software requirements.

Judges completed verification of sentencing data • for 2008.

Web-accessible sentencing reports were made • available to Commission staff with further additions and expansions planned following an upgrade to the software (scheduled for early 2010).

Sentencing Simulation Model training was • completed and model testing resulted in some modifications. Model testing is anticipated for completion in the first quarter of 2010.

Policy CommitteeGathered information on policies and practices, • relevant research, and data in order to develop recommendations for state and county parole guidelines, resentencing guidelines, and recommitment ranges.

Identified education and training needs. • Seminars and training sessions on sentencing policy and practices, sentencing guidelines, and SGS Web were scheduled and held.

Research CommitteeCompleted and issued the Legislative • Report, A Study on the Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences, in response to House Resolution 12 of 2007.

Completed and issued the 2• 009 Legislative Report on the State Motivational Boot Camp Program.

Undertook a study on the impact of program • completion on recidivism for the 2010 Legislative Report on the State Intermediate Punishment Program.

Continued a long-term research effort on • economic sanctions and community service sanctions.

Released a Research Bulletin, • The Impact of Boot Camp Program Completion on Recidivism.

THE WORK


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentencing-Related Seminars:Officer Basic Training for the PA Board of Probation • and Parole (for new probation and parole officers)

Covers basic terminology and an overview of sentencing statutes and policies, e.g., sentencing alternatives, mandatory minimums, county versus state sentences, aggregation, merger, etc.

Three sessions at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Training Academy in Elizabethtown and one session in the Harrisburg area.

Introduction to Sentencing in Pennsylvania•

Covers basic terminology and an overview of sentencing statutes and policies e.g., sentencing alternatives, mandatory minimums, county versus state sentences, aggregation, merger, etc.

One session each at MPOETC in Harrisburg, Penn State DuBois, and Clearfield County Emergency Management in Clearfield. One session requested by Montgomery County Drug and Alcohol.

6th Edition Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing • in Pennsylvania

Covers the 6th Edition Sentencing Guidelines and provides a comprehensive explanation of Offense Gravity Score, Prior Record Score, and sentencing recommendations specific to the 6th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. Includes a review of sentencing statutes and policies, plus overviews of State Intermediate Punishment and SGS Web.

Three sessions at Penn State campuses in DuBois, Harrisburg and Lehigh Valley as well as one session at a facility of the Clearfield County Emergency Management unit and one in a facility in Cranberry Township. Three sessions requested by Lebanon, Lycoming, and Mercer County Courts.

Basic Sentencing Overview•

Provide a basic overview of sentencing processes and sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania, targeted to specific audience needs.

Two sessions for the PA District Attorneys Institute’s Basic Prosecutors Course.

Supporting Criminal Justice PractitionersSeminarsThe Commission devoted significant resources during 2009 to educational programs in sentencing, the application of sentencing guidelines, and specific topics for court professionals Most seminars were CLE accredited; all were free-of-charge to Pennsylvania criminal justice professionals, including court staff, district attorneys, judges, probation and parole officers, public defenders, private attorneys, and others. The following is a summary of programs offered:

Special topic or customized seminars are held • for legislative staff and members in the Capitol Complex area. Seminars are often requested by county agencies, courts, and other agencies and held locally.

Legislative sessions included:

-2008 Sentencing and Corrections Reform Package-The Use and Impact of Mandatory Sentences

Other special request seminars included:

-An Overview of Sentencing and Correction Reform and Revised Guidelines

Twenty-five sessions held in the following counties: Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Chester, Clinton, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Fayette, Huntingdon, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Schuykill, Union/Snyder, Venango, and York. One session requested by Treatment Trends.

-Overview of Sentencing Guidelines

One session for the Juvenile Court Judges Commission.

SGS Web-Related TrainingSGS Web Basic•

A hands-on computer session on the basics of calculating the sentencing guidelines and submitting the guideline sentence form. Includes advanced OTN search, creating PRS worksheets, entering offense and sentencing information, submitting, and printing the judicial proceeding.

Two sessions in Harrisburg.

SGS Web Advanced•

A hands-on computer session beyond the basics. Covers entering judicial proceedings with multiple OTNs and docket numbers, perfecting searches, using offense search shortcuts, updating/changing case information and running reports.

Two sessions in Harrisburg.

SGS Web County Requested•

Hands-on computer session covers both the SGS Web Basic and Advanced training topics and focuses attention on county-specific work flow processes.

One session each for Allegheny, Beaver, and Philadelphia counties.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentencing / SGS Web AssistanceCommission staff provides assistance and support services for sentencing-related questions and technical assistance for SGS Web. During 2009, there were more than 1,000 requests for information or assistance on sentencing and sentencing guidelines and nearly 900 requests for help with SGS Web.

Sentencing and guideline questions are posed not only by judges and court staff but also by probation and parole officers, district attorneys, public defenders, defense attorneys, out-of-state agencies, and the general public. Technical assistance for SGS Web users generally is requested by probation and parole officers, district attorneys, judges, court staff, and clerks of courts.

All SGS Web questions may be directed to 814-867-1243.

Beginning in 2007, the Commission assigned sentencing policy specialists to the eastern and western regions of the state. This change allows specialists to work more closely with counties on sentencing-related issues. Counties in the eastern region call 717-772-4122 and those in the western region call 814-863-5204.

West 814-863-5204 East 717-772-4122 Allegheny Franklin Adams Monroe Armstrong Fulton Berks Montgomery Beaver Greene Bradford Montour Bedford Huntingdon Bucks Northampton Blair Indiana Carbon Northumberland Butler Jefferson Chester Perry Cambria Lawrence Columbia Philadelphia Cameron McKean Cumberland Pike Centre Mercer Dauphin Schuylkill Clarion Mifflin Delaware Snyder Clearfield Potter Juniata Sullivan Clinton Somerset Lackawanna Susquehanna Crawford Venango Lancaster Tioga Elk Warren Lebanon Union Erie Washington Lehigh Wayne Fayette Westmoreland Luzerne Wyoming Forest Lycoming York


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Annual Villanova Sentencing WorkshopEach year, the Commission cohosts the Villanova Sentencing Workshop, held at Villanova University School of Law. The heart of the workshop is student-judge interaction and discussion of real cases submitted by the participating judges.

The 2009 workshop was held over two multi-day sessions in March and April. It brought together 12 students, 7 sitting judges, 2 parole board members, a prosecutor, a defense attorney and other professionals to discuss sentencing policy through the lens of pre-screened, real cases.

Before the sessions, participants reviewed voluminous case files, including police reports and court transcripts. They determined an appropriate sentence for each case and prepared brief sentencing memoranda explaining their decisions. This information was distributed to the other workshop participants to facilitate discussion of the cases. The sessions were devoted in large measure to discussion of the cases and learning about factors that go into the sentencing decision.

The 2009 workshop included a parole component which assisted Commission efforts in developing parole guidelines. Participants were provided post-sentencing documents, including a Parole Decisional Instrument and supporting documents related to risk, needs, institutional programming, institutional behavior, and other factors. These were used to consider a decision to grant parole and set any parole requirements or conditions.

PA Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin and former Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Dennis M. O’Brien were guest speakers during the 2009 workshops. Prosecution and defense were represented by the Philadelphia County District Attorney’s Office and Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, respectively. The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Board Chair Catherine McVey and Board Member Benjamin Martinez participated and shared their expertise in the parole decision process.

Judiciary Member Participants in the 2009 Villanova Sentencing Workshop

Marilyn J. Horan, Butler County Court of Common Pleas•Linda K. M. Ludgate, Berks County Court of Common Pleas •HaroldF.Woelfel,Jr.,UnionandSnyderCountiesCourtCommonPleas•Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas•MargheritaPattiWorthington,MonroeCountyCourtofCommonPleas•John H. Yoder, McKean County Court of Common Pleas•JohnA.Zottola,AlleghenyCountyCourtofCommonPleas•

Criminal Justice Advisory BoardsThe Sentencing Commission, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), supported the efforts of County Criminal Justice Advisory Boards (CJABs) in several ways. In 2007, the Commission and PCCD began a collaborative effort to provide counties with technical and training assistance through the dedication of limited funding to support local initiatives. The intent was to provide a means for counties to apply for smaller amount of funds without the need of a lengthy grant application process. During fiscal year 2008/2009, $20,000 in technical assistance and training grant funds were awarded to 15 counties. To date in fiscal year 2009/2010, more than $30,000 of grant funds were awarded to 23 counties.

NASCThe Commission has been actively involved in the National Association of Sentencing Commissions (NASC) since its inception in 1992. The Commission’s first executive director, John Kramer, was a key player in the formation of NASC, which was established for the exchange of information on sentencing policy. Commission staff have served as board members and conference planning committee members in the past.

NASC’s 16th Annual Conference was held in Baltimore, Maryland, in August 2009. The executive director was a panelist in a session on release decisions.

Courses TaughtDuring 2009, the executive director taught one undergraduate course on sentencing for Penn State’s Department of Sociology as part of the Crime, Law and Justice Program.

Journal PublicationsDuring 2009, the executive director co-authored a journal article and was sole author of another.

Bergstrom, M. H., Dermody, F., Chanenson, S. L. & • Hyatt, J. (2009). The next era of sentencing reform... Revisited. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21 (3).

Bergstrom, M. H. (2009). The Pennsylvania • experience: You need a tool box to build a roadmap. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, 1(1).


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

PresentationsThe Executive Director presented specifically on the Sentencing and Corrections Reforms during 2009 for:

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Criminal • Conversations. January 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

Pennsylvania Bar Association, Pennsylvania • Bar Institute. January 2009, Philadelphia, PA, Webinar.

Montgomery County Bar Association. January • 2009, Norristown, PA.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Law Clerks. • February 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. • February 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. • February 2009, Lancaster, PA.

Bucks County Bar Association. March 2009, • Lancaster, PA.

*Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. March • 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

*Defenders Association of Philadelphia. April • 2009, Norristown, PA.

*Philadelphia Bar Association. April 2009, • Philadelphia, PA.

Allegheny County Bench-Bar Conference. June • 2009, Seven Springs, PA.

*Included Sentencing Guideline Revisions

Other activies included:

National Project on Risk and Needs at Sentencing• . National Center for State Courts. February 2009, Montgomery, AL.

Criminal Law Symposium• . Pennsylvania Bar Institute. June 4, 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

Release Decisions. • National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference. August 2009, Baltimore, MD.

Sentencing and Parole Fundamentals (Part 1)• . Duquesne University School of Law. September 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

Sentencing and Parole Fundamentals (Part 2)• . Duquesne University School of Law. September 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

Recommended Parole Guidelines for Allegheny • County. Advisory Board Member, Systems Synthesis Project: Carnegie Mellon University. Fall 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

*HR12: A Study on the Use and Impact of • Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Commission for Justice Initiatives in Pennsylvania. October 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

National Project on Risk and Needs at Sentencing• . National Center for State Courts. October 2009, Washington, DC.

Consultation: Colorado Sentencing Reforms• . Vera Institute of Justice. October 2009, New York , NY.

Consultation: Drug Sentencing Policies, District • Attorney-Elect Seth Williams. Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. October 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

Sentencing Case Review• . Duquesne University School of Law. November 16, 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

Parole Case Review• . Duquesne University School of Law. November 30, 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.

Consultation: Strategic Planning in Sentencing and • Corrections. Vera Institute of Justice. December 2009, New York, NY.

*Deputy Director/Research Director presented


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Staff Committee WorkCommission staff members serve on numerous national, state, and local committees and boards to promote the understanding and use of sentencing

guidelines and to help create and enhance consistent, rational, equitable, and fair sentencing policy and practices. Participation in 2009 included:

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Drug Court Accreditation Committee.•

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Inter-Disciplinary Advisory Committee.•

County Commissioners Association of PA., Courts and Corrections Committee.•

County Commissioners Association of PA., County Criminal Justice Data Quality Project.•

Correctional and Parole Population Projections Committee.•

Cross Agency Workgroup for Adam Walsh Act Implementation.•

Joint State Government Commission, Advisory Committee on Children of Incarcerated Parents (HR 203, SR 52) • and Subcommittee on Arrests and Judicial Proceedings.

Legislative Service Agency Directors.•

Master Charge Code Committee.•

National Association of Sentencing Commissions, National Conference Program Committee. •

Pennsylvania Bar Association, Committee on Justice Initiatives in PA.•

Pennsylvania Bar Association, Mental Health Initiatives Group.•

PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Commission Member.•

PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, County Systems Subcommittee.•

PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Mental Health Advisory Committee.•

PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency Public Safety Advisory Committee (executive director is vice-• chair).

PA Justice Network, County Integration Committee.•

PA Justice Network, Executive Council.•

PA Justice Network, Justice Agency Advisory Subcommittee (executive director is chair).•

PA Justice Network, Steering Committee.•

PSU Crime, Law, and Justice Affiliate Program Group (staff member is board member, chair).•

PSU Justice Association.•

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

TestimonyThe executive director provided testimony before these House and Senate panels in 2009:

House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on • Criminal Justice: Federal Stimulus Funding. April 2, 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

House Transportation Committee: Accidents • Involving Death or Personal Injury (HB 197, HB 352, HB 748). April 20, 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

House Judiciary Committee: Mandatory Minimum • Sentencing Study, Findings and Recommendations. October 21, 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

House Majority Policy Committee: The Prison • System and Reducing Its Costs. October 30, 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

Senate Judiciary Committee: Prison • Overcrowding. November 16, 2009, Harrisburg, PA.

Legislative ReportsThe Commission submitted the following reports:

Pennsylvania’s Motivational Boot Camp Program. • The Impact of Program Completion on Offender Recidivism: 2009 Report to the Legislature, in January 2009.

A Study on the Use and Impact of Mandatory • Minimum Sentences, in October 2009.

Research BulletinThe Commission published one Research Bulletin during 2009:

The Impact of Boot Camp Program Completion on Recidivism: A Summary of the 2009 Legislative Report (Vol. 8 No. 1, February 2009).

Data and InformationMore than 135 requests for data were received from state and county governments, the news media and researchers. The Commission also generated in-depth and complex data analyses for state and county decision makers, including many projects for the legislative and executive branches of state and federal government. Some examples include:

Comparative analysis of repeat violent offender • legislative proposals.

Sentencing impact assessments of selected • components of House Resolution 12 of 2007.

Two-and four-year sentencing trend reports.•

State sentences in county jails.•

First time offenders.•

Assaultive versus non-assaultive crimes. •

Sentencing data used for analysis for House Bills • 39, 89, 282, 373, 485, 727, 914 and 1720.

Impact of Proposed LegislationGiven the impact policies and practices have on other segments of the criminal justice system, budgets, and capacity, the Commission actively works with other agencies on population projections and impact analyses. It serves as a member of the Correctional and Parole Population Projections Committee along with the Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole, Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and the Governor’s Budget and Policy Offices. This Committee is charged with developing annual population projections based on changes in programs, policies, practices, and other nuances in the criminal justice system in order to plan for the future.

The Commission consults with legislative offices, executive branch agencies, the judiciary, and other groups to develop public policy. More formally, the Commission analyzes the impact of legislative proposals in a proactive effort to assist in the creation of solid policy. Through reviews of current and past sentencing data, forecasts are created as to the impact on the criminal justice system of not only new laws, but also changes or proposed changes in policy and practice. Impact analyses were completed for House Bills 39, 89, 282, 373, 485, 727, 1567, and 1720. Additionally, a sentencing simulation module is used to more accurately project the impact from changes in sentencing guidelines or statutes to the types of sentences imposed.

Supporting Decision MakersThe following are examples of how the Commission supported policy and decision makers during the year.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Relevant Case LawPennsylvania’s appellate courts (Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court) issued opinions during 2009 relevant to sentencing and the sentencing guidelines and parole.

Below are listed a number of those cases and the important sentence-related aspects addressed in the decisions. More detailed extracts from these opinions are found in Appendix B.

Commonwealth v. Scassera• , 965 A.2d 247 (Pa.Super., 01/05/2009) -Guidelines

Commonwealth v. Hoke, • 962 A.2d 664 (Pa., 01/22/2009) -Mandatory

Commonwealth v. Miller, • 965 A.2d 276 (Pa.Super., 01/28/2009) -Discretionary Aspects

Commonwealth v. Crork, • 966 A.2d 585 (Pa.Super., 02/10/2009) -Guidelines

Commonwealth v. Macias, • 968 A.2d 773 (Pa.Super., 03/17/2009) -Guidelines

Commonwealth v. Bowen, • 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa.Super., 05/21/2009) -Guidelines, Discretionary Aspects

Commonwealth v. Ventura,• 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa.Super., 05/26/2009) -Discretionary Aspects

Commonwealth v. Brougher• , 978 A.2d 373 (Pa.Super., 07/13/2009) -Enhancement

Commonwealth v. McKibben,• 977 A.2d 1188 (Pa.Super., 07/14/2009) -Mandatory

Commonwealth v. Brown, • 982 A.2d 1017 (Pa.Super., 10/14/2009) -Discretionary Aspects

Commonwealth v. Haag, • 981 A.2d 902 (Pa., 10/23/2009) -Mandatory, DUI

Commonwealth v. Smith, • 982 A.2d 1241 (Pa.Super., 10/30/2009) -Mandatory, Appeal

Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, • 983 A.2d 777 (Pa.Super., 11/5/2009) -Guidelines

Legislation EnactedThe General Assembly approved a number of bills that either established sentences for new offense categories or revised penalties for existing ones. (See Appendix A). Included were these new 2009 laws:

Act 2009-15 — Modifies the sexual abuse of children statutes to add language “intentionally views,” noting that the term does not include the accidental or inadvertent view of such material.

Act 2009-38 — Amends cruelty to animals statute in the areas of cropping, trimming, or cutting off the ears of a dog, debarking, cutting the tail of a dog, surgical birthing, and declawing; amends animal fighting.

Act 2009-39 — Amends right to bail statute to deny bail when offenses are subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or where no conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community.

Act 2009-42 — Provides for restitution for identify theft in addition to any other restitution sentence or order authorized by law.

Reform WorkWith the enactment of Acts 81 and 83 of 2008, the Commission was directed to develop resentencing and parole guidelines and state recommitment ranges. These new responsibilities provide an opportunity to improve coordination and resource utilization while enhancing accountabilty, transparency, and predictability. The Commission adopted a strategic plan to guide its efforts in creating these comprehensive and complementary guidelines and to address the related tasks of data collecion, analysis, evaluation, and education.

In order to leverage existing resources while involving broad participation from practitioners, five work groups were established, each chaired by a Commission member. These work groups function as subcommittees of the Commission’s Policy Committee, chaired by Allgheny County Judge Jeffrey A. Manning (January through April) and Philadephia Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper (May through December). Over the course of a year, they sought information on processes, policies, and practices in Pennsylvania and other states. They gathered data, research, and instruments. Data analyses were conducted.

Due to reductions in the Commission’s FY 2009/2010 state appropriation and the lack of state funding for mandated reform activities, all work groups’ activities were suspended as of December 2009.

Moving forward, in order to help inform the process, the Commission will collect data on county sentences, parole decisions, time-served, and revocations. During 2009, the Commission completed beta testing of the data collection instrument and began working with faculty at several universities who will assist in the data collection process in their counties.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Reform Work GroupsCounty Parole GuidelinesChairDistrict Attorney Marjorie J. FoxGreene County

Lead StaffCarrie Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist

Members Judge Ramy DjerassiPhiladelphia County

Vincent A. Guarini, WardenLancaster County Jail

Sarah Hart, Assistant District AttorneyPhiladelphia County

Judge Timothy F. McCuneButler County

Carl S. McKee, Chief Probation OfficerWarren County

Christopher Murphy, Chief Probation OfficerChester County

Brinda C. Penyak, Deputy DirectorCounty Commissioners Association of PA

Rep. Douglas G. ReichleyPA House of RepresentativesCommission Member, PA Commission on Sentencing

Ann Schwartzman, Director, Policy and Public EducationPennsylvania Prison Society

Edward G. Sweeney, Director of CorrectionsLehigh County Jail

Eric Webb, JNET County Deployment CoordinatorPennsylvania Justice Network

Robert Yablon, Assistant Public DefenderDefenders Association of Philadelphia

Sentencing and Resentencing GuidelinesInitial ChairJudge Jeannine TurgeonDauphin County

Current Co-Chairs (as of 04/2009)Judge Jill E. RangosAllegheny County

President Judge Harold F. Woelfel, Jr.Snyder and Union Counties

Lead StaffHelene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist

Members Professor Alfred Blumstein.J. Erik Jonsson University Professor of Urban Systems and OperationsCarnegie Mellon University

Senior Judge Charles C. Brown, Jr.Centre County

President Judge David W. HecklerBucks County

Judge John S. KennedyYork County

Merritt E. “Ted” McKnight, Esq.Clinton County

Judge Kevin SasinoskiAllegheny County

William T. C. Tully, Esq.Dauphin County

Sen. Mary Jo WhitePA SenateVice Chair, PA Commission on Sentencing

Judge Margherita Patti WorthingtonMonroe County

The Commission reached out to faculty at other academic institutions to develop research partnerships. Some researchers are formulating their own research agendas and studies that will benefit the Commission. Others will captain research teams to collect county data and information. The partnerships include: Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University of PA, Millersville University of PA, Susquehanna University, The Pennsylvania State University, University of Pennsylvania, Villanova University, Waynesburg University, and York College of PA.

County Data Collection Project: Confirmed Partnerships

No Partnership Confirmed Partnership


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

State Parole Guidelines and Recommitment RangesChairJudge Linda K. M. LudgateBerks County

Lead StaffDiane E. Shoop, Ph.D., ManagerOutreach & Policy Support

Members Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D.Department of CorrectionsEx Officio, PA Commission on Sentencing

District Attorney Bradley H. FoulkErie County

Judge Joseph M. JamesAllegheny County

President Judge John D. KuhnAdams County

Victim Advocate Carol L. LaveryOffice of Pennsylvania Victim AdvocateEx Officio, PA Commission on Sentencing

Board Member Matthew T. ManginoBoard of Probation and Parole

Board Member Benjamin A. MartinezBoard of Probation and Parole

Chairman Catherine C. McVeyBoard of Probation and ParoleEx Officio, PA Commission on Sentencing

Sharon R. Meisler, Assistant Public Defender Montgomery County

James M. Polyak, Esq.Berks County

Data Collection and Application DevelopmentChairAttorney Marc C. RaspantiPietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti LLP

Lead StaffCarol A. Zeiss, Manager, Data ManagementJoan Lisle, Manager, Information Access

Staff worked to secure funding to begin strategic planning to enhance the SGS Web application and to conduct county data collection efforts.

Research and EvaluationChairProfessor Steven L. ChanensonVillanova University School of Law

Lead StaffCynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D.Research DIrector/Deputy Director

Staff worked to secure funding and to develop research partnerships to begin work in the area of risk, needs, and parole guidelines.

ResearchThe Commission was involved in five research projects during 2009. Three of the on-going projects, Evaluations of the Motivational Boot Camp Program, Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program, and State Intermediate Punishment Program, are legislatively mandated studies. Two other projects, the Economic Sanctions Project and the Mandatory Minimum Sentence Project, came about as a result of Act 37 of 2007 and House Resolution 12 of 2007, respectively.

These projects were conducted in conjunction with a research partnership that the Commission has with the Sociology Department and the Crime, Law, and Justice Program at The Pennsylvania State University.

The following section provides a brief summary of each research project. For Research Bulletins and full reports

on these projects, please visit the Commission’s web site: http://pasentencing.us.

Motivational Boot Camp ProjectAct 215 of 1990 provided for the establishment of Pennsylvania’s Motivational Boot Camp to address the prison-overcrowding problem and to offer an alternative program that would address some of the underlying problems associated with crime, such as substance abuse. This legislation also mandated the Commission to evaluate and provide annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Act 112, which created the new State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) Program, changed the reporting requirement so that in odd numbered years, the Commission submits a legislative report on the Boot


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Camp program and in even numbered years submits a report on the SIP program.

The 2009 Legislative Report presented findings on the predictors of program completion and the impact of program completion on recidivism. Offenders were less likely to complete Boot Camp if they were female, young, had a greater number of prior arrests, had lower expectations for personal change, had difficulty controlling their tempers, and found complicated tasks to be more challenging.

While offenders who completed Boot Camp were less likely to recidivate, this finding was not statistically significant. Offenders were significantly more likely to recidivate if they were: male, young, non-white, unemployed, less educated, property offenders, incarcerated as a juvenile, and repeat offenders. Additionally, offenders were more likely to recidivate if they indicated temper problems, a need for substance abuse treatment, and that they came from a less close-knit family.

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program ProjectThe Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) Program is a relatively new program designed to enhance public safety by providing eligible non-violent offenders the opportunity to participate in programs intended to reduce recidivism. Those offenders who successfully complete the program serve a reduced minimum sentence. The RRRI program, which became effective on November 24, 2008, was part of a broader correctional reform package signed by Governor Rendell on September 25, 2008 (Act 81 of 2008). The legislation’s stated purpose for RRRI was “to create a program that ensures appropriate punishment for persons who commit crimes, encourages prisoner participation in evidence-based programs that reduce the risks of future crime, and ensures the openness and accountabiility of the criminal justice process while ensuring fairness to crime victims” (44 Pa. C.S.A. §5302).

During 2009, the Commission began work with the Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole to identify offenders sentenced under RRRI. Since the program has been in operation only one year, there will be limited information for the Commission’s first Legislative Report on RRRI in 2010.

State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) ProjectIn 2004 the Legislature established the SIP program, effective May 2005, to provide a two year, step-down, substance-abuse program for state-bound offenders.

During 2009, the Commission undertook a study to examine the predictors of program completion, and the impact of program completion on recidivism. Results are reported in the 2010 Legislative Report.

Economic Sanctions ProjectSenate Bill 116 of 2007 (Act 2007-37), signed by the Governor on July 17, 2007, directed the Commission to adopt guidelines for fines and other lawful economic sanctions as well as prescribe community service alternatives that may be imposed in lieu of fines. This legislation took effect November 14, 2007. As a first step, the Commission developed initial guidelines for fines and community service. These became effective on December 5, 2008.

The Commission has also undertaken a long-term research effort with Professor R. Barry Ruback serving as principle investigator. Professor Ruback, working with court data as well as sentencing data, is developing baseline information on what economic sanctions are ordered, the relative use of the various economic sanctions based on the nature of the offense and the sentence imposed, and the outcomes in terms of collections and public safety.

Utilizing results from the project thus far, ProfessorRuback and graduate student Valerie Clark published a chapter titled Reduce Disparity in Economic Sanctions in the book, Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice Policy. Their research found that there are more than 2,000 different types of economic sanctions in Pennsylvania and that there is signficant variation between counties and individuals in the imposition of these sanctions with respect to both type and amount of sanction.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing ProjectHouse Resolution 12, passed on October 16, 2007, directed the Sentencing Commission to “conduct a study on the use and impact of mandatory minimum sentences.” This two-year study built upon the preliminary work conducted by the Sentencing Commission in response to House Resolution 613 of 2004. The study concluded in October 2009. Background and findings are presented in the next section.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Responding to Initiatives:The Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Pennsylvania

Each year the Commission identifies one issue to examine in detail as part of the Annual Report, providing an opportunity to explore the intersection of legislation, policy, research, and practice. The topic of the use and impact of mandatory minimum sentences was selected for the 2009 Annual Report in recognition of the completion of the two-year study assigned by House Resolution 12 of 2007.

House Resolution 12 of 2007On October 16, 2007, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Resolution 12 which directed the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to conduct a study addressing the use and impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania. HR 12 required that the Commission report its activities, findings and recommendations to the House of Representatives within two years following the adoption of the Resolution.

The Commission undertook a three-phase project to analyze:

the extent to which mandatory sentences are 1. imposed; the processing of mandatory sentencing cases; 2. and the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing with 3. respect to crime reduction.

Interim reports were prepared throughout the project. In October 2009, a final report was submitted to the House of Representatives.

Advisory Committee An advisory committee, including legislators, judges, district attorneys, and public defenders, was established for the project (see page 25). They provided project guidance, defined the scope of the project and received testimony. Over the project period, the advisory committee met ten times.

Research itself was undertaken by Commission staff under the direction of Dr. Cynthia Kempinen, Commission Deputy Director and Research Director, and Dr. R. Barry Ruback, faculty researcher associated with the Commission and a professor at The Pennsylvania State University.

Who Receives the Mandatory Sentence? Prior to the recidivism analysis, analyses were first conducted to determine what factors were related to the imposition of the mandatory sentence for each of the samples [excluding school zone, as there were too

few offenders who did not receive the mandatory to conduct this analysis].

For all three types of offenses [drug delivery, repeat violent, and firearms], the type of disposition is found to be a strong and consistent predictor of the mandatory minimum sentence, in that those offenders convicted via trial were more likely than those convicted via a plea to receive at least the mandatory sentence. In all three studies, offense seriousness and prior convictions were found to be related to the imposition of the mandatory, though not always in the same way. Repeat violent offenders and firearms offenders who committed more serious offenses were more likely than those convicted of less serious offenses to receive the mandatory. Drug delivery offenders who dealt in lower quantities of drugs were more likely than those dealing in larger quantities to receive the mandatory sentence. Repeat violent offenders and firearms offenders with prior convictions were more likely than those without prior convictions to receive the mandatory sentence.

For drug offenders, however, it depended upon the type of prior convictions, with those offenders having a prior drug offense [for which the mandatory statute requires a longer minimum sentence] being less likely than those not having a prior drug offense to receive the mandatory. Meanwhile offenders having a personal offense were more likely than those without a prior personal offense to receive the mandatory sentence. Drug offenders who were being sentenced for more than one current conviction were more likely than those being sentenced for only one offense to receive the mandatory.

In addition to these legal factors, the influence of four other factors was considered: age, gender, race, and county. Age was not related to the imposition of the mandatory for any of the offense types. Gender was significant only for repeat violent offenders, in that males were more likely to receive the mandatory. However, there were few females in this sample, so caution should be applied to this finding.

Drug delivery and firearms studies showed that race and county were significant predictors of imposition of the mandatory. Hispanic offenders were more likely than white offenders to receive the mandatory; there was no difference in the imposition of the mandatory between black offenders and white offenders. Although there was no difference in the sentencing of drug delivery offenders in Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties, those offenders sentenced in the remaining urban counties or rural counties were more likely than those sentenced in Allegheny to receive the mandatory sentence. Offenders in Allegheny County, however, were more


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

likely than those sentenced in Philadelphia County to receive the mandatory sentence for firearms offenses. Those sentenced in other urban counties were less likely than those in Philadelphia to receive the mandatory sentence.

What Factors are Related to Recidivism? For purposes of these studies, recidivism is defined as either an arrest for a new crime or a return to prison for a technical violation. The percentages of offenders returning to prison for technical violations ranged from 10% of drug delivery offenders to 30% of repeat violent offenders. The overall recidivism rates were as follows: drug delivery offenders [54%], school zone offenders [57%],repeat violent offenders [54%], and firearms offenders [50%].

Of the offenders who did recidivate, over 50% did so within a year. Of those offenders arrested for a new crime, the drug delivery and school zone offenders

were most likely to have a new charge involving a drug offense [47% and 46%, respectively], while the repeat violent and firearms offenders were more likely to have a new charge involving a personal offense [43% and 41%, respectively].

For each of the studies, four models for the analyses were used to determine which factors best predict recidivism:

Model 1 included the two legal factors that are • required to be considered by the sentencing guidelines, seriousness of offense and prior convictions;

Model 2 added the type and length of • sentence;

Model 3 added additional legal variables • beyond that required by the guidelines: number of current convictions, type of disposition, and number of prior arrests; and

The Commission is most appreciative of the expertise, support, and time provided by members of the HR 12 Advisory Committee. The Committee was created to help define the project’s scope, to provide guidance to the staff throughout the project, and to receive

testimony from policy-makers, practitioners, and interest group representatives regarding the use and impact of mandatory minimum sentences.

The committee met three times during 2009: March 27th, June 26th, and September 11th.

ChairProfessor Steven L. ChanensonVillanova University School of LawCommission Member, Research Committee Chair

MembersHarry J. Cancelmi, Jr., Public DefenderGreene County

Rep. Thomas C. CreightonLancaster County

Judge William R. CunninghamErie County

Rep. Craig A. DallyNorthampton County

Rep. William I. GabigCumberland County

Rep. Thaddeus KirklandDelaware County

Judge Linda K. M. LudgateBerks County

Rep. Kathy M. ManderinoMontgomery and Philadelphia Counties

District Attorney Edward M. Marsico, Jr.Dauphin County

Rep. Gregory S. VitaliDelaware County

Rep. Don R. WalkoAllegheny County

Ex Officio MembersRep. Frank Dermody, ChairPA Commission on Sentencing

Rep. Douglas G. Reichley, Commission MemberPA Commission on Sentencing

Commission StaffMark H. BergstromExecutive Director

Cynthia A. Kempinen, Ph.D. Deputy Director/Research Director

Carrie L. PetersSentencing Policy Specialist

Professor R. Barry RubackFaculty Researcher

Advisory Committee


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Model 4 added additional factors that research • has found to be associated with recidivism: age, gender, race, and county.

The two consistent and strong, predictors of recidivism across all four studies were age and prior arrests. Younger offenders were more likely than older offenders to recidivate, and offenders with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely than those with fewer prior arrests to recidivate.

Current offense, prior convictions, and type of sentence were predictors of recidivism in three of the studies. Drug offenders were more likely to recidivate if they were convicted of dealing in smaller rather than larger quantities of drugs; repeat violent offenders convicted of a sex offense were less likely than those convicted of other violent offenses to recidivate; and firearms offenders convicted of robbery were more likely than offenders convicted of other types of violent offenders to recidivate.

For three of the studies [drug delivery, school zone, and firearms], offenders who had prior convictions were more likely than those without prior convictions to recidivate. For three of the studies [drug delivery, school zone, and repeat violent offenders], offenders sentenced to prison were more likely to recidivate than those not sentenced to prison. Neither length of sentence nor the imposition of the mandatory sentence per se was a predictor of recidivism in any of the studies.

Race and county were each related to recidivism in one of the studies, but there was no consistent pattern. In the drug delivery study, black offenders were more likely than white offenders to recidivate. In the repeat violent offender study, offenders sentenced in Allegheny County were more likely than those sentenced in Philadelphia County to recidivate.

Overall Findings Frequency of Mandatory Sentencing and Trends in Sentences Imposed

In the studies of the imposition of the mandatory • sentence, offense seriousness, prior convictions, and type of disposition [i.e., trial vs. plea] were found to be the strongest and most consistent predictors of the imposition of the mandatory sentence. In general, offenders who had prior convictions, and/or were convicted via a trial were more likely to receive the mandatory sentence. For repeat violent offenders and firearms offenders, those convicted of more serious offenses were more likely to receive the mandatory sentence.

Overall, about 45% of the mandatory eligible • offenses received a mandatory sentence. However, there was quite a bit of variation depending upon

the type of mandatory. For example, during 2008, firearms offenses were most likely to receive a mandatory sentence [70%], followed by drug offenses [43%], and repeat violent offenses [26%].

Overall, about 54% of the offenses that received a • mandatory minimum sentence were reported as such to the Sentencing Commission. The rate of imposition was highest for firearms offenses [70%] than for drug delivery offenses [43%] or repeat violent offenses [26%] during 2008.

While there has been an increase in the number of • offenses reported to the Commission from 1990 to 2007, the proportion of offenses that were violent [average of 3%] and drug delivery offenses [average of 21%] remained fairly stable throughout this time period.

There has been a general increase in the length • of sentence for both firearms offenses and repeat violent offenses. For firearms offenses, the average minimum sentence increased from 66 months in 1990 to 86 months in 2007. For repeat violent offenses, the average minimum sentence increased from 74 months in 1990 to 95 months in 2007.

For offenders convicted of drug delivery offenses, • across years, the average minimum jail sentence was 8 months and the average minimum prison sentence was 26 months. The average minimum sentence for both jail and prison remained fairly stable over this 18-year period.

Processing Of Mandatory Sentencing CasesIn a survey of judges, district attorneys and public • defenders designed to obtain information on the processing of mandatory eligible cases in the 67 counties, the response rate was highest for district attorneys [43%], followed by public defenders [33%] and judges [24%]. There was general agreement that about 70% of the mandatory eligible cases involved some type of plea agreement. The type of plea agreement was more likely to involve the dropping of charges than a reduction in charge or a minimum sentence less than that required by the mandatory statute.

District attorneys indicated that they were more • likely to invoke the school zone mandatory when children were present than if children were not present, although they did not appear to make distinctions with respect to distance involved [1,000 feet of school] or whether it was a school building versus school property.

In a study of charge reduction involving mandatory • eligible offenders, firearms offenders [63%] were more likely than repeat violent offenders [39%] or drug delivery offenders [26%] to have a charge reduction that resulted in the offender becoming ineligible for the mandatory. Consistent with the


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

survey findings, most charge reductions involved the dropping of charges rather than a reduction in the severity of the charge for all three offender groups.

Effectiveness of Mandatory SentencingIn a survey of legislators, there was a response • rate of 7% [N=18], which limits the extent to which the findings could be generalized to the General Assembly. Among those who responded, there was general support for the various purposes behind mandatory sentencing [deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, moral outrage, rehabilitation, and victim restoration]; there was the least support for rehabilitation, except for DUI offenses.

In a poll of Pennsylvania citizens, the percentage who • could correctly name at least one offense requiring a mandatory minimum sentence ranged from 34% [using a ‘strict’ interpretation] to 51% [using a ‘loose’ interpretation]. The most frequently cited offenses were sexual offenses involving children (28%), violent offenses involving a firearm (28%), DUI (23%), and drug trafficking (11%).

In a survey of offenders sentenced to prison • [response rate of 24%], most could correctly identify the offenses that had mandatory sentencing provisions. They were most likely to identify ‘selling drugs near a school’ [80%], ‘committing a violent offense with a gun’ [76%], and ‘selling drugs over a certain amount’ [70%] as mandatory eligible offenses. Most offenders also knew the two offenses that did not carry a mandatory sentence, as they were least likely to indicate that ‘hitting someone and breaking their nose’ [12%] and ‘stealing $250,000 at work’ [31%] had mandatory sentences.

Most offenders said they had at least thought about • the possibility that they would be arrested prior to committing their current offense, but most did not think about what type of sentence they would likely receive if caught. After arrest, however, most offenders thought a great deal about their sentence, and most said the sentence they received was higher than what they expected.

In the four recidivism studies involving three-• year follow-up, the recidivism rate [i.e., arrest for a new crime or technical violation resulting in re-incarceration] were as follows: drug delivery offenders, school zone offenders, repeat violent offenders, and firearms offenders.

The age of the offender and the number of prior • arrests were found to be the strongest and most consistent predictors of recidivism. Those offenders who were younger and those offenders with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to recidivate.

Offense type, prior convictions, and type of sentence •

were also found to predict recidivism. Offenders who had prior convictions and offenders sentenced to prison were more likely to recidivate. Among drug offenders, those convicted of selling smaller quantities were more likely than those dealing in larger quantities to recidivate. Among repeat violent offenders, those convicted of a sex offense were less likely than those convicted of other violent offenses to recidivate. Among firearms offenses, those convicted of robbery were more likely than those convicted of other violent offenses to recidivate. For drug delivery offenders, those convicted of dealing in smaller quantities of drugs were more likely than those convicted of dealing in larger quantities of drugs to recidivate.

Neither length of sentence nor the imposition of • the mandatory sentence per se, was related to recidivism.

Mapping of schools zones in the major municipality • for each county indicated that the percentage of the municipality that was within 1,000 feet of a school ranged from 0.5% to 39%, with a statewide average of 19%.

Mapping of arrests within Philadelphia County for • 2002 showed that 3,365 [72%] of the arrests for drug delivery offenses were within 1,000 feet of school property. There were 34 offenses reported to the Commission on Sentencing as being sentenced under the mandatory school zone statute for that year.

Appendix E School Zone Maps


395


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Policy Implications The purposes of sentencing are identified as:

Certainty of punishment (defining a minimum • term the court is required to impose on a defendant);

Incapacitation (interrupt the life cycle of violent • and other serious crimes);

Deterrence (deterring certain types of crimes); • and

Retribution (sentence should bear a rational • relationship to the type of crime committed).

Through this study, the Commission found many practices which compromise these stated purposes of mandatory sentencing, especially certainty of punishment as well as general and specific deterrence. Findings suggest the need for more targeted and consistent application if these purposes are to be achieved.

In Pennsylvania, the majority of mandatory sentencing statutes require the prosecutor to give notice prior to sentencing of his/her intent to seek the mandatory; absent this notice, the mandatory does not apply. For mandatory-eligible offenses, charge reductions and the waiver of the mandatory sentencing provision result in the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence in a minority of cases. In general, offenders with prior convictions and those who were convicted following trial (rather than through a guilty plea) were more likely to receive a mandatory minimum sentence. It is not surprising then, that in a poll of Pennsylvania citizens no more than 28% could identify any single offense for which there is a mandatory minimum sentence.

However, mandatory sentencing statutes serve as valuable tools for law enforcement and prosecution, in that they provide leverage to encourage cooperation (e.g., pressure lower-level drug dealers to provide information about higher-level dealers) and to achieve negotiated pleas and sentences in cases that would otherwise require a substantial commitment of time and resources for a trial. Through surveys and discussions, district attorneys also acknowledge the important role of mandatories and of their discretion to withhold or withdraw mandatories in negotiating pleas in difficult cases, such as those involving a vulnerable victim or weak evidence. The consensus is that a plea to a lesser offense or agreement to a sentence shorter than that required by the mandatory is better than an acquittal.

Consistent with this, the Commission found an increase in the average minimum sentence imposed in cases where the mandatory minimum sentence was available but not invoked. So, while the uneven application or selective use of mandatories may undermine the purposes of certainty and deterrence, the successful prosecution and subsequent incarceration may help to achieve the purposes of retribution and incapacitation.

Aside from purposes, HR 12 also identifies concerns about unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences, including:

Significant increases in the costs of corrections • due to longer prison terms and an increasing prison population;

Removal from consideration other sentencing • options that may prove to be less costly and/or more effective than mandatory incarceration;

Impact on all aspects of the criminal justice • system, including pleas or verdicts and offender eligibility for rehabilitation programs and early release; and

Limiting the discretion of the sentencing judge. •

Mandatory minimum sentences alone are not the reason for the increase in the correctional population, but they are a driver of other criminal justice policies and practices, including sentencing guidelines. The sustained growth in the state prison population is well documented. The PA Department of Corrections (DOC) reports inmate population growth from 33,553 in 1997 (1997 Annual Report) to 46,028 inmates by 2007 (2007 Annual Report). As of April 2010, the total population under the supervision of the Department exceeded 53,000. This represents a 53% increase in inmates from 1997. In 1997, a narcotic drug conviction was the primary offense for 14% of the DOC population; by 2007, this increased to 17%.

Many factors have contributed to this correctional population increase, not the least of which is enhanced law enforcement and prosecution. Pennsylvania’s civilian population remained fairly stable during the decade discussed above, with only a 3% increase from 1997 to 2007. The crime rate during the same period dropped for both violent crimes (6% decrease) and property offenses (21% decrease). However, the number of criminal incidents reported to the Commission between 1997 and 2007 increased by 40%, with drug violations representing a greater portion of all sentences reported, from 17% in 1997 to 22% in 2007. The reported use of mandatory minimum sentences also increased, from 784 mandatory sentences in 1997 (364 for drug mandatories) to 1,676 in 2007 (1,016 for drug mandatories).

The General Assembly created sentencing alternatives to serve as rehabilitative alternatives to traditional incarceration (e.g., County Intermediate Punishment, State Motivational Boot camp, and State Intermediate Punishment) are presently under-utilized. Contributing factors include: prohibitions to use certain programs to satisfy mandatory minimum sentencing provisions; extensive ineligibility criteria, particularly as related to present or past offenses; and/or other restrictions of a sentencing judge’s ability to consider the program, such as approval by the prosecutor. Many of these programs


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

have been found to produce lower recidivism rates and substantial cost savings as compared to incarceration.

Many recognize the need for mandatory sentencing statutes which balance certainty of punishment with discretion. In those areas where public safety is most at risk or where deterrence is the primary purpose, certainty may be more important than discretion. In those areas where rehabilitation may play an important role, such as with treatment of drug related offenders, broader court discretion may be warranted. The ‘prosecutorial notice’ provision contained in many mandatory minimum statutes in Pennsylvania vests this discretion with the prosecutor. Many have argued that the sentencing court should have some share of this discretion.

One example of a sharing of discretion is found in the mandatory sentencing for DUI. For first-time offenders, the district attorney may recommend an offender for participation in Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD), but the Court makes the determination as to whether or not the offender is admitted into the program. For DUI convictions, the statute requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence; however, the Court is authorized to use certain County Intermediate Punishment programs to satisfy the mandatory sentence. Another example is the ability of the Court to impose a sentence of State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) in lieu of a mandatory minimum sentence for an eligible offender, although an offender may only be referred for SIP upon motion of the Commonwealth.

In order to promote the stated purposes of mandatory minimum sentences while reducing the unintended consequences, it is important to first confirm the need for the mandatory provision. If the need exists, then identify the primary purpose for the provision, target the population of offenders subject to the mandatory, and implement the use of the mandatory consistent with the purpose. While retribution (i.e., punishment, accountability) is an underlying purpose of sentencing in Pennsylvania and efforts should continue to promote uniformity and proportionality in sentencing, factors specific to the offense or the offender may influence the consideration of other purposes.

Recommendations Based on the HR 12 findings, the Commission developed recommendations for consideration by the General Assembly and the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee. It should be noted that not all recommendations were adopted unanimously by the Commission; a record of the final vote for each recommendation is provided in the August 2009 Commission meeting minutes found on the Commission web site. The Commission recommended that the General Assembly:

Repeal the Drug-Free School Zone mandatory • legislation, which is irregularly applied and overbroad geographically, in favor of the existing guidelines-based youth and school sentencing enhancement.

Allow sentencing courts to use existing • authorized sentencing options, including State Intermediate Punishment (alternative to traditional prison) and County Intermediate Punishment (alternative to traditional jail), to satisfy lower-level drug trafficking mandatory minimum sentences.

Distinguish between those mandatory • sentencing provisions that apply automatically based on conviction and those that require ‘prosecutorial notice,’ by referring to the latter as ‘sentencing enhancement upon prosecutorial notice’.

Increase the threshold for the application of the • mandatory for the lowest category of cocaine from 2 to 5 grams.

Amend the definition of ‘previous conviction’ • to require a conviction on the previous offense prior to the occurrence of the current offense to eliminate the stacking of previous convictions in the sentencing of multiple offenses during one judicial proceeding.

Link penalties to the aggregate weight of • compounds and mixtures in the judicial proceeding.

Reduce the amount of mandatory fines. •

Several of these recommendations have been included in Senate Bill 1299, introduced on April 13, 2010 by Senator Steward J. Greenleaf, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The full report, The Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences, is posted on the Commission on Sentencing’s web site. Reports are also available on CD upon request.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

PART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

30 Part II: Sentencing Analysis

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng INTRODUCTION TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES

PART II: SENTENCING ANALYSIS

The Commission is required by statute to adopt guidelines for sentencing within the limits established by law (42 Pa.C.S. §2154). The guidelines assign ranges for the minimum incarceration sentences for each offense. In Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing system, the trial judge is free to impose any maximum term up to the statutory maximum established by the Legislature for the grade of the conviction offense. For example, most first degree felonies have a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years.

The guidelines for minimum sentences take into account the gravity of the current conviction offense by assigning an “Offense Gravity Score” (OGS). The seriousness and extent of the offender’s prior record is weighed with a “Prior Record Score” (PRS). For each combination of OGS and PRS scores, the guidelines prescribe three ranges:

A standard range, for use under normal • circumstances.

An aggravated range, for use when the • judge determines that there are aggravating circumstances/factors (things that tend to increase the seriousness of the offense).

A mitigated range for use when the judge • determines that there are mitigating circumstances/factors (things that tend to “lessen” the seriousness of the crime).

When a judge sentences an offender for a felony or misdemeanor, a reason for the sentence imposed must be stated. If it is within either the aggravated or mitigated range, the judge is encouraged to identify specific aggravating or mitigating reasons. However, if a sentence is imposed that is outside of the recommended guideline ranges, the judge must provide a written explanation.

By law, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney can appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence. The Superior Court must vacate a sentence when the lower court failed to consider the guidelines, applied the guidelines erroneously, departed from the guidelines and imposed an unreasonable sentence, or sentenced within the guidelines and imposed a clearly unreasonable sentence.

Guideline EditionsThe Commission’s sentencing guidelines first went into effect on July 22, 1982, and applied to all crimes committed from that date forward. They were amended in June 1983, January 1986, and June 1986.

On October 7, 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated all guidelines due to a procedural error that occurred in 1981 when the Legislature rejected the Commission’s initial set of guidelines. With unanimous support from the General Assembly, the guidelines were repromulgated and became effective April 25, 1988.

Since then, the Commission periodically has reviewed and revised its guidelines to keep them current. Amendments to the guidelines helped identify defendants for the new County Intermediate Punishment program, beginning August 9, 1991; four months later, on December 20th, the guidelines were amended again for the new Boot Camp program. A comprehensive review of the guidelines led to a revised set that became effective on August 12, 1994. The Commission made further revisions as of June 13, 1997.

During 2004 and 2005, the Commission held hearings across the state and solicited comments on the guidelines. Taking into consideration new laws addressing driving under the influence (DUI), as well as a new sentencing alternative for State Intermediate Punishment, the Commission released new guidelines on June 3, 2005.

The guidelines were recently revised, effective December 5, 2008, to incorporate legislation enacted during the past three years and to promote greater utilization of sentencing options such as fines, community service, and intermediate punishments. Details of some of these changes are provided later in this section.

Date of Offense Onor After … Applicable Guidelines

07/22/1982 1st Edition06/03/1983 1st Edition, Amend 101/02/1986 1st Edition, Amend 206/05/1986 2nd Edition

10/07/1987Sessoms Decision (invalidated all previous guidelines)

04/25/1988 3rd Edition08/09/1991 3rd Edition, Revised

12/20/1991 3rd Edition, Revised Amend 1

08/12/1994 4th Edition06/13/1997 5th Edition06/03/2005 6th Edition12/05/2008 6th Edition, Revised

Effective Dates ofPennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines

Sentencing Guidelines


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentencing AlternativesWhen sentencing an offender, the court is limited, by statute, to these options:

Determination of guilt without further penalty.•

Fines.•

Restitution.•

Probation.•

County Intermediate Punishment.•

State Intermediate Punishment.•

Partial confinement.•

Total confinement.•

(See Appendix C).

The Judicial Code also provides that multiple sentencing alternatives may be ordered to be served concurrently or consecutively. Effective January 1, 1997, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim P. Rule 1406 (Imposition of Sentence), for every sentence imposed, the court must state whether that sentence shall run consecutively or concurrently to any other active sentence. The Commission discourages the use of an indefinitely suspended sentence, as such a sentence is not provided for in the Sentencing Code (Com. v. Hamilton, 488 A.2d 277, Pa.Super. 1985). Any other suspension of a sentence of incarceration in which conditions are placed on the defendant has been held

to be the equivalent of probation (Com. v. Duffy, 681 A.2d 219, Pa.Super. 1996).

When imposing a sentence of partial or total confinement, statute requires the court to impose both a minimum and a maximum sentence (42 Pa.C.S. §§9755, 9756). The sentencing guidelines and most mandatory sentencing provisions address only the minimum sentence. Sentencing guideline recommendations are ranges of months that the court must consider prior to imposing a minimum sentence for any offense. The court must impose a maximum sentence that is at least double the minimum sentence, but the maximum sentence cannot exceed the period of time authorized by 18 Pa.C.S. §§1103-1105. While there are exceptions, generally the longest minimum and maximum sentences are provided by statute as noted below.

Recidivism Risk Reduction IncentiveRecidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI), as created by Act 81 of 2008, establishes an alternative minimum sentence along with the regular minimum and maximum sentences. RRRI applies only to non-violent offenders sentenced to state prison who complete prescribed treatment or programs, maintain acceptable conduct, and meet other criteria. These offenders may be paroled at the RRRI minimum.

Grade

LongestMinimumSentence

LongestMaximumSentence

MaximumFine

Murder 1 Life/Death Life/Death $50,000 Murder 2 Life Life $50,000 Murder 3 20 years 40 years $50,000

Inchoate Murder, with serious bodily injury 20 years 40 years $50,000 Inchoate Murder, no serious bodily injury 10 years 20 years $50,000 Rape/Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with victim younger than age 13, with serious bodily injury Life Life $25,000 Rape/Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with victim younger than age 13, no serious bodily injury 20 years 40 years $25,000 Assault of Law Enforcement Officer in 1st Degree; Manslaughter of Law Enforcement Officer in 1st Degree 20 years 40 years $25,000 Terrorism Felony 1 20 years 40 years $100,000 Ecoterrorism Felony 1 20 years 40 years $100,000 Felony 1 10 years 20 years $25,000 Felony 2 5 years 10 years $25,000 Felony 3 3.5 years 7 years $15,000 Misdemeanor 1 2.5 years 5 years $10,000 Misdemeanor 2 1 year 2 years $5,000 Misdemeanor 3 6 months 1 year $2,500 Summary 90 days 90 days $300

Statutory Limits


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Place of Confinement/Paroling Authority All persons receiving a maximum sentence of five years or more are confined under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections (42 Pa.S.C. §9762). Persons whose maximum terms of confinement are at least two years, but less than five years, may be confined either under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections or in the county jail as the sentencing judge directs (42 Pa.S.C.§9762). A maximum term of confinement less than two years means confinement in the county jail (42 Pa.S.C. §9762).

Paroling authority is vested with the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole when the maximum sentence of confinement is two years or greater; this is a state sentence (61 Pa.C.S.A. §6132). Paroling authority from a county sentence when the maximum sentence is less than two years is vested in the court (61 Pa.C.S.A. §6132).

According to the 2008 reform legislation, beginning November 24, 2011, offenders with a two year or more maximum sentence will be confined in state prison unless certain criteria are met. The paroling authority will correlate to the confinement location.

EnhancementsAn enhanced range of sentences is prescribed in certain specific circumstances:

Deadly Weapon Enhancement — Statute requires that the guidelines “(S)pecify a range of sentences of increased severity for defendants who possessed a deadly weapon during the commission of the current conviction offense” (42 Pa. C.S. §2154(a)(3)). The enhancement provides increases in the guideline recommendations proportional to the severity of the conviction offense. Beginning with the 5th Edition of the Guidelines, the Commission differentiates between deadly weapons that were possessed and those that were used during the commission of an offense.

Youth/School Enhancement — Increases in the guideline recommendations are provided whenever an offender either distributes a controlled substance to a minor or commits certain drug offenses within 1000 feet of a school. This enhancement was initially developed as an alternative to mandatory sentencing provisions. If the court determines the elements to be present, the court must consider the enhanced guideline sentence recommendations.

Homicide by vehicle in a work zone enhancement — The Commission assigns a higher Offense Gravity Score (OGS) for this offense with increased sentencing recommendations.

Mandatory SentencesFor certain offenses, the Legislature establishes the shortest sentence an offender may receive upon conviction. Mandatory minimum sentences supercede sentencing guideline recommendations. However, a sentence longer than the mandatory minimum may be imposed if the guidelines recommend a longer sentence after the extent and severity of an offender’s prior record, as well as other factors, are taken into account.

In such cases, the court must consider the guidelines prior to sentencing. It may depart from the recommendations by stating, for the record, the reasons for the departure.

Pennsylvania statute contains two types of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, “notice required” and “no notice required.” The first requires the prosecutor to give reasonable notice to the defendant, prior to sentencing, of intent to proceed under a mandatory minimum sentencing statute. If the prosecutor does not do so, the mandatory provision does not apply. The second type does not require notice by the prosecutor and applies automatically upon conviction for an offense identified in the mandatory statute.

Offenses with mandatory minimum penalties, along with prosecutorial notice requirements, can be found in Appendix D.

Inchoate OffensesFor purposes of applying the sentencing guideline recommendations, all convictions for inchoate offenses must be reported in conjunction with the offense which was attempted, conspired, or solicited. This information is necessary to be able to determine the OGS for the inchoate offense. For the most part, the inchoate offense carries the same OGS as if it had been the completed offense. The one exception to this policy is for inchoates to Felony 1 offenses; these have an OGS that is one less than the OGS for the completed offense.

Overall, 4% of the offenses reported are inchoate offenses. Approximately 3% of the offenses reported are conspiracies, with attempts and solicitations each totalling fewer than 1% of the total offenses reported. A few types of offenses include more inchoates than typical; burglary, carjacking, kidnapping, and robbery stand out in this regard. (See Table 30).


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

ConformityA sentence conforms to the guidelines if it falls within the standard, aggravated or mitigated sentencing ranges. Otherwise, if it falls above the aggravated or below the mitigated ranges, the sentence is considered to be a departure “above” or “below” the guidelines. If the court determines that the guideline recommendations are inappropriate based on the facts of the case, the court may give a longer sentence (departure above) or a shorter sentence (departure below) as long as the court provides a reason on the record and reports that reason to the Commission via SGS Web.

Departures can be categorized into “dispositional departures” and “durational departures.” A dispositional departure occurs when the guidelines recommend a period of incarceration but a non-incarceration sentence is imposed or a non-incarceration is imposed when incarceration is recommended. A durational departure occurs when an incarceration sentence is recommended and imposed, but the length of incarceration is either greater than or less than that recommended by the guidelines.

The Superior Court is instructed, by statute, to vacate a sentence if the lower court:

failed to consider the guidelines,•

applied the guidelines erroneously,•

departed from the guidelines and imposed an • unreasonable sentence, or

sentenced within the guidelines and imposed a • clearly unreasonable sentence.

Reporting RequirementsSince 1982, the Commission has collected relevant information on sentences imposed. Reporting by criminal court judges is mandated by statute (42 Pa.C.S. §2153(a)(14)). While it does not contain a verbatim account of the entire sentencing proceeding, the information collected includes offender information and court case identification; offense of conviction; record of previous convictions; sentence recommendations, including applicable sentencing enhancements and/or mandatory provisions; type of disposition; and the sentence imposed, including any reasons provided.

The challenge in reporting sentencing data is that there are a variety of ways to describe sentencing activity. The way in which the sentence itself is defined and imposed can vary greatly, as can the unit of analysis that is being employed. The following section briefly describes some of the ways in which the Commission has addressed these issues. Sentencing data are reported as annual (calendar year) data files.

Defining a Sentence for ReportingSentences can be viewed in a number of ways. The Commission’s Annual Reports are based upon the most serious offense per criminal incident. For the most serious offense in the criminal incident, only the most serious sentence per offense is reported.

Criminal IncidentA criminal incident is an offense or offenses committed by an offender on a specific date; it is also referred to as transaction. A criminal incident may contain a single offense or multiple offenses.

Judicial ProceedingA judicial proceeding is an offense(s) committed by an offender that is (are) sentenced on a given date. A judicial proceeding may contain a single criminal incident or multiple criminal incidents.

Most Serious OffenseThe most serious offense is the offense with the highest Offense Gravity Score (OGS). The most serious offense may be within a criminal incident (based on date of offense), within a judicial proceeding (based on date of sentence), or among all offenses an offender committed within a given year.

Most Serious SentenceThe most serious sentence is the sanction that is the most restrictive and, in cases of multiples, with the longest length (typically determined by comparing minimum sentence lengths); state incarceration sentences are assumed to be more serious than county incarceration sentences. A single offense may have multiple sentences (e.g. county jail followed by probation). Each offense has its own most serious sentence. Furthermore, each judicial proceeding, each criminal incident, and each offender has its or his/her own most serious sentence.

Qualifiers and DisclaimersData reflected in the following tables and graphics are those reported to the Commission as of April 30, 2010. The Commission will revise data tables incorporating any sentences for 2009 that are filed after that date through its Web site (http://pasentencing.us). Revisions are posted upon the public release of the data set, no sooner than one calendar year following the data set year.

Steps have been taken to ensure that information submitted to the Commission is as accurate and complete as possible. As electronic data are submitted through SGS Web, each case undergoes an enhanced error check process. These error checks encourage the submission of accurate information, as well as promote


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

sentencing practices in accordance with statute and the sentencing guidelines.

Before public release of its annual sentencing data, the Commission employs both internal and external verification processes. The external process, which began with 1998 sentencing data and is now automated via SGS Web, allows judges to verify online at any time that their sentencing information was reported to the Commission accurately. Also, before the sentencing year is completed and prior to final production of an annual report, the Commission provides judges an additional opportunity to verify their data.

As the year draws to a close, a report is sent to all president judges that summarizes sentences imposed in each county. Individual judges have the opportunity to address any reporting omissions, and president judges may note any underreporting in their counties.

Another resource, which can be used thanks to the assistance of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), is data produced from AOPC’s Common Pleas Case Management System (CPCMS). Use of these records will enable the Commission to compare its data with the AOPC database to determine whether reporting shortfalls occur.

Sentencing data reflect all Pennsylvania felony and misdemeanor offenses sentenced in the Common Pleas Courts during the calendar years listed that were reported to the Commission. The following sentences generally are not reported to the Commission:

Philadelphia Municipal Court sentences, which • include driving under the influence (DUI), as well as other misdemeanor offenses.

Magisterial district judges’ sentences, which • include some DUI and Misdemeanor 3 offenses, as they are not a ‘court of record.’

Murder 1 and Murder 2 sentences, which may be • reported but are not required to be reported.

The Commission does not collect or disseminate information on summary offenses, Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, disposition in lieu of trial, or probation without verdict. Nor does it currently collect violations or revocations of probation, parole, County Intermediate Punishment, or State Intermediate Punishment since the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

Sentencing data include offenders sentenced in the Courts of Common Pleas. This encompasses adults, individuals age 18 and older, and juveniles, younger than age 18, who are certified to be tried as adults.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

AN OVERVIEW OF SENTENCING IN 2009

SentencesSome 142,221 offenses were sentenced during 2009 and reported to the Commission. The total number of sentences reported reflects a decrease from the total number reported in 2008, the first decline in more than a decade.

Table 1 (next section) illustrates the reporting formats previously described, showing the number of offenses reported for the calendar year by each county. Separate totals are presented for cases determined to be the most serious offense for a specific criminal incident, a judicial proceeding, and an individual offender. Totals typically decline in that order because a criminal incident may involve multiple offenses; a judicial proceeding may include multiple, criminal incidents committed by

the same offender; and an individual person may be included in multiple judicial proceedings.

All subsequent tables and figures in this report use the “most serious offense per criminal incident” unless otherwise noted. This reporting format is most similar to previous annual reports.

Half of the 76,307 non-DUI sentences (50%) reported for 2009 were nonincarceration sentences, comprising sentencing alternatives such as County Intermediate Punishment, probation, fines, restitution, and guilt without further penalty (Fig. A). The relative percentage of nonincarceration sentences has increased over time. For example, in 1990, county jail and nonincarceration sentences were almost equal.

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000State Prison SIP County Jail Nonincarceration

Figure A. Number of Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009Sentences

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009

State Prison SIP County Jail Nonincarceration

Figure A. Number of Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009Sentences

Year

*Based on all offenses excluding Driving Under the Influence offenses . 2009 N=76,307

State Intermediate Punishment as sentencing alternative in May 2005. 2005 N=41, 2006 N=212, 2007 N=259, 2008 N=284, 2009=423

A similar trend is apparent in the 21,731 sentences for drug offenses. Non-incarceration was the most common sentencing outcome reported for drug offenses in 2009

(58%), though state incarceration has increased from 17% in 2000 to 18% in 2009 (Fig. B) (also, Table 8, next section).

15 000

Figure B. Number of Drug Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, 1990-2009

Sentences

10,000

15,000



Sentences

5,000

10,000

15,000



Sentences

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Sentences

Year0

5,000

10,000

15,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Sentences

Year

2009 N=21,731

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Sentences

Year

2009 N=21,731


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentences imposed for DUI convictions (Fig. C) remained about same as 2008, totalling 22,430 in 2009 (see Table 11).

Fi C D i i U d th I fl S t

25,000

Figure C. Driving Under the Influence Sentences: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009

Sentences

15 000

20,000

25,000


Sentences

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Sentences

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Sentences

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2009


*Does not include Driving Under the Influence Sentences from Philadelphia Municipal Court

Sentences

Year0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2009


*Does not include Driving Under the Influence Sentences from Philadelphia Municipal Court

Sentences

Year

Misdemeanor offenses accounted for the majority of reported sentences (Fig. D). During 2009, 68% of the 98,737 reported sentences resulted from offenses graded as misdemeanors. It should be noted that M1 offenses (maximum of 5 years) or M2 offenses

(maximum of 2 years) are considered felonies in many other jurisdictions. Thirty-two percent were felony offenses with fewer than 1% of reported sentences resulting from 1st or 2nd degree murder.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Percent of Total

Figure D. Distribution of Sentences by Grade of Offense: Pennsylvania, 2009

<1%4% 5%

12% 11%

22%14%

7%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Percent of Total

StatutoryGrade

Figure D. Distribution of Sentences by Grade of Offense: Pennsylvania, 2009

<1%4% 5%

12% 11%

22%14%

7%

25%

*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*Based on 98,737 sentences

DUI

Murder F1 F2 F3 Unclassified M1 M2 M3 Unclassified

MF


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentences are most often disposed through a negotiated plea agreement (Fig. E). During 2009, 74% of sentences were disposed in this manner. Another 20% resulted

from non-negotiated plea agreements. Less than 5% of dispositions were the result of bench or jury trials.

Figure E. Distribution of Sentences by Type of Conviction: Pennsylvania, 2009

Jury Trial 1%

Other, 2%Bench Trial, 2%


Non-Negotiated Guilty Plea, 20%Jury Trial, 1%






* Due to rounding percentages may not total

*Based on 97,849 sentences reporting type of conviction

Negotiated Guilty Plea, 74%




* Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%






* Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%





While 14% or 13,709 of the sentences imposed in 2009 were for incarceration in state prison, 34% or 34,061 called for time in county jails and 38% or 37,436 were probation sentences (Fig. F). State Intermediate

Punishment (SIP) sentences were given less than 1% of the time; County Intermediate Punishment (CIP) sentences accounted for 10% of the total or 10,076 sentences.

State Prison,14%

Other RS,3%

Figure F. Distribution of Sentences by Type of Sentence: Pennsylvania, 2009

State Prison,14%

SIP, <1%

Probation, 38%

Other RS,3%


State Prison,14%

SIP, <1%

County Jail, 34%

Probation, 38%

Other RS,3%


State Prison,14%

SIP, <1%

County Jail, 34%

CIP, 10%

Probation, 38%

Other RS,3%


*Based on 98,737 sentences.. Only 1 sanction (most serious) per

ff i h

State Prison,14%

SIP, <1%

County Jail, 34%

CIP, 10%

Probation, 38%

Other RS,3%


*Based on 98,737 sentences.. Only 1 sanction (most serious) per offense is shown.

State Prison,14%

SIP, <1%

County Jail, 34%

CIP, 10%

Probation, 38%

Other RS,3%


*Based on 98,737 sentences.. Only 1 sanction (most serious) per offense is shown.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Fig. G shows the percentage of incarceration sentences has declined from a high of 60% in 1990 to a relatively stable level of about 45% in recent years (44% in 2009).

The length of minimum and maximum incarceration sentences (Figs. H and I) has been relatively stable.

80%

100%

Figure G. Percent Incarcerated Sentences: Pennsylvania, 2009Percent

57% 60% 57%

46% 45% 44% 44% 44% 44%60%

80%

100%


57% 60% 57%

46% 45% 44% 44% 44% 44%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


57% 60% 57%

46% 45% 44% 44% 44% 44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Year

57% 60% 57%

46% 45% 44% 44% 44% 44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Year

Driving Under the Influence offenses not included

57% 60% 57%

46% 45% 44% 44% 44% 44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Year

Driving Under the Influence offenses not included

36

Figure H. Average Length of Minimum Incarceration Sentences: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009

Average (months)

24

36


Average (months)

State Prison

12

24

36


Average (months)

State Prison

0

12

24

36

1985 1990 1995 2000 2007


Average (months)

Year

State Prison

County Jail0

12

24

36

1985 1990 1995 2000 2007


Average (months)

Year*Driving Under the Influence offenses not included

State Prison

County Jail0

12

24

36

1985 1990 1995 2000 2007


Average (months)


State Prison

County Jail

84

Figure I. Average Length of Maximum Incarceration Sentences: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009

Average (months)

48

60

72

84


Average (months)

State Prison

24

36

48

60

72

84


Average (months)

State Prison

0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 2007 2009


Average (months)

Year

State Prison

County Jail0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 2007 2009


Average (months)


State Prison

County Jail0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 2007 2009


Average (months)


State Prison

County Jail


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

OffendersMore than 142,000 sentences were reported for 2009 in Pennsylvania. Demographic characteristics of offenders have remained consistent over the years. According to the 2009 sentences reported to the Commission, the majority of offenders were white, most were males, and half were younger than age 30.

During 2009, 79% of the offenders (based on 98,737 criminal incidents) were male (Fig. J). Seventy percent of the offenders were White, 27% were Black, and 2% were Hispanic (Fig. K).

Figure J. Distribution of Sentences by Gender of Offender:

Female, 21%

Figure J. Distribution of Sentences by Gender of Offender:Pennsylvania, 2009

Female, 21%


Male

Female, 21%


Male,79%

Female, 21%


Male,79%

Female, 21%


*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*Based on 98,737 sentences reporting gender of offender

Male,79%

Female, 21%


*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*Based on 98,737 sentences reporting gender of offender

White70%Hispanic

Black27%

Other1%

Figure K. Distribution of Sentencesby Race/Ethnicity of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2009

White70%Hispanic

2%

Black27%

Other1%

Figure K. Distribution of Sentencesby Race/Ethnicity of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2009

*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*Based on 94,107 sentences reporting race/ethnicity of offender.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Additionally, nearly 38% of the offenders were between the ages of 21 and 29 (age at time of sentence). Another

12% fell in the 18 to 20 age group. Twenty-three percent of the offenders were age 30 to 39 (Fig. L).

Conformity to GuidelinesDuring 2009, 91% of the 98,608 sentences imposed conformed to the guidelines. (The guidelines do not apply to the 129 sentences imposed for Murder 1 and Murder 2).

Most (76%) were within the “standard” range (Fig. M). The remaining 15% of sentences within the guidelines were in the mitigated (8%) and aggravated (7%) ranges. Eight percent of sentences departed from the guidelines: 3% departed above and 5% departed below.

<1%

12%

38%

23%18%

7%2%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure L. Distribution of Sentences by Age of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2009Percent

<1%

12%

38%

23%18%

7%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

17 and Younger

18-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and Older

Figure L. Distribution of Sentences by Age of Offender: Pennsylvania, 2009Percent

AgeGroup

*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*Based on 98,335 sentences reporting data sufficient to determine age of offender

Figure M. Conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009

Mitigated 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Aggravated, 7%

Mitigated, 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Standard

Aggravated, 7%

Mitigated, 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Standard, 76%

Aggravated, 7%

Mitigated, 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Standard, 76%

Aggravated, 7%

Mitigated, 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%Based on 98,608 sentences

Standard, 76%

Aggravated, 7%

Mitigated, 8%

Above, 3%Below, 5%

Procedural, <1%


Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%Based on 98,608 sentences


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

86% 86% 84%89% 91% 91% 92% 90% 90%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Percent

Figure N. Conformity to the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009

86% 86% 84%89% 91% 91% 92% 90% 90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent

Year

Figure N. Conformity to the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 1985-2009

*Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses not included

Overall, the most common reason cited for departing either above or below the guidelines was “plea” or “plea agreement.” Departures below most frequently referenced “recommendations of the prosecution.” Other reasons for departures appearing in the top ten include “offender sentenced on other charges (current)” “multiple current convictions,” “a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime,” and “other” (See Tables 2 and 3, next section).

Departure rates above the guidelines were highest for some serious offenses such as arson (persons), burglary (no house/person), inchoate murder (no SBI), voluntary manslaughter, robbery (SBI), and misdemeanor sexual offender registry violations (See Table 18). Departure rates below the guidelines were highest for some serious offenses such as aggravated assault (SBI), carjacking, felony escape, inchoate murder (with SBI), sexual assault, voluntary manslaughter, felony VUFA, and felony sexual offender registry violations (Table 18).

Many counties record departure rates that are less than one percent. One county (Huntingdon) had double-digit departure rates above the guidelines , and three counties (Allegheny, Cameron, and Philadelphia) had double-digit departure rates below the guidelines (Table 17).

Overall, conformity to the guidelines tends to decrease with an increase in the seriousness of the offense. The conformity rate is highest (98%) for offenses with an OGS of 1 and lowest (62%) for offenses with an OGS of 11 (Table 20).

Departure rates below the guidelines were highest for OGS 11 (33%), OGS 10 (25%) and OGS 13 (24%).

Departure rates above the guidelines were highest for OGS 12 (12%), OGS 10 (11%), and OGS 13 and OGS 8 (10% each).

County and State Intermediate Punishment AlternativesOffenders eligible for County (CIP) or State (SIP) Intermediate Punishment are often sentenced to county or state prison (see Tables 21 & 22). County and State Intermediate Punishment sentencing alternatives were utilized in a minority of cases in which the offender might have been eligible (See Table 23). In 2009, 6,133 offenders were eligible for SIP and 5% of those were sentenced to SIP; 45,394 offenders were eligible for CIP and 18% of those were sentenced to CIP.

Economic SanctionsThe use of economic sanctions (fines and restitution) and assessments (costs and fees) is common. Over 40% of the sentences reported indicate fines were assessed, and 18% of sentences included restitution (See Table 26).

Juvenile OffendersUnder some circumstances juveniles are sentenced in adult court. Table 27 shows the kinds of offenses and sentences reported for offenders who were younger than age 18 at the time they committed their offenses. In 2009, 522 juveniles offenders were sentenced. Most were age 17, but offenders were as young as age 14 (See Table 28). Twenty-four percent of these offenders were sentenced in Philadelphia (see Table 29).


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Sentencing Levels: Purpose, Targeted Offenders, Type of Sentence by Level

Offense HistoryRecommendedSentence

Length of Sentence

TargetedOffenders

Very serious & most violent offenders

Purpose ofsentence

Punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the criminal behavior & incapacitation to protect the public

TargetedOffenders

Very serious offenders

Purpose ofsentence

Punishment & incapacitation

TargetedOffenders

Serious offenders

Overview: offenders & purpose

Current conviction for a completed crime of violence or major drug felony (OGS>=9)

State or County Incarceration or County IP, Restorative Sanctions

Numerous prior convictions

Numerous prior convictions

4

5

Lower Limit 12 months or greater; limited to offenses with OGS 9 or greater; includes mandatories >=30 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses

Lower Limit 12 months or greater, but <30 months; limited to offenses with an OGS <9; includes mandatories 12-<30 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses

Lower Limit of incarceration of <12 months; includes

State incarceration in a state facility

State incarceration in a state or county facility

Available Sentencing Options:Total confinement: State facilityState IP, Boot CampTotal confinement: County facilityPartial confinement: County facilityCounty IP


Purpose ofsentence

Retribution & control over the offender

TargetedOffenders

Generally non-violent offenders

Purpose ofsentence

Control over offender & restitution to victims

TargetedOffenders

Least serious offenders

Purpose ofsentence

Provide minimal control necessary to fulfill court-ordered obligations.

Numerous, but less serious prior convictions

County Incarceration or County IP, Restorative Sanctions

1 or fewer prior misdemeanor convictions

Restorative Sanctions (RS)

Lower Limit of RS; Upper Limit <12 months

RS

3

2

1

mandatories of < 12 months; may include CIP & SIP eligible offenses

Available Sentencing Options:Total confinement: County facilityPartial confinement: County facilityCounty IP

Available Sentencing Options:Restorative sanctions


Available Sentencing Options:Total confinement: State facilityState IP, Boot CampTotal confinement: County facilityPartial confinement: County facility


PART III: DATA TABLES

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

44 Part III: Data Tables

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2009Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2009

County All OffensesMost Serious Offense by

Criminal IncidentMost Serious Offense by

Judicial ProceedingMost Serious Offense by

PersonAdams 1,162 877 837 682

Allegheny 18,514 9,988 9,554 7,670

Armstrong 613 430 360 304

Beaver 1,542 1,350 1,155 995

Bedford 423 352 305 284

Berks 4,764 3,348 2,793 2,572

Blair 2,494 1,840 1,424 1,224

Bradford 524 425 393 359

Bucks 5,710 5,289 4,753 4,324

Butler 1,880 1,420 1,396 997

Cambria 2,014 1,517 1,132 976

Cameron 47 35 32 33

Carbon 639 536 515 440

Centre 1,276 950 744 681

Chester 2,973 2,238 2,042 1,837

Clarion 435 342 289 262

Clearfield 519 308 217 212

Clinton 397 349 303 275

Columbia 566 413 361 313

Crawford 758 644 586 539

Cumberland 2,856 2,024 1,814 1,590

Dauphin 6,507 4,041 3,682 2,951

Delaware 8,193 6,182 5,976 5,123

Elk 351 279 239 216

Erie 2,380 1,783 1,509 1,398

Fayette 2,838 1,256 1,033 965

Forest 35 28 27 25

Franklin 1,270 1,101 964 902

Fulton 201 165 140 124

Greene 737 354 311 305

Huntingdon 261 224 182 154

Indiana 582 507 436 373

Jefferson 618 382 314 295

Juniata 246 187 180 139

Lackawanna 1,922 1,584 1,492 1,251

Lancaster 5,314 3,127 2,442 2,334

Lawrence 792 690 657 543

Lebanon 2,803 1,445 1,286 1,102

Lehigh 3,616 2,765 2,498 2,138

Luzerne 2,977 2,211 1,847 1,695

Lycoming 1,547 1,115 1,074 856

McKean 700 520 437 399

Mercer 1,038 855 781 703

Mifflin 602 530 475 434

Monroe 1,121 962 863 800


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 1. Number of Cases Reported by County: Pennsylvania, 2009

County All OffensesMost Serious Offense by

Criminal IncidentMost Serious Offense by

Judicial ProceedingMost Serious Offense by

PersonMontgomery 7,617 6,176 6,122 4,774

Montour 136 116 102 88

Northampton 2,700 2,212 2,155 1,803

Northumberland 933 765 617 548

Perry 613 441 389 340

Philadelphia 12,759 7,905 7,397 6,622

Pike 470 347 325 300

Potter 224 127 122 96

Schuylkill 2,545 1,170 899 817

Snyder 398 324 290 260

Somerset 611 454 365 323

Sullivan 52 50 48 43

Susquehanna 348 293 259 237

Tioga 221 187 173 159

Union 366 274 250 209

Venango 794 590 511 458

Warren 440 350 307 289

Washington 1,192 943 831 746

Wayne 437 369 337 312

Westmoreland 4,751 3,016 2,441 2,098

Wyoming 278 242 187 177

York 7,579 5,418 5,020 4,091

Total 142,221 98,737 88,997 76,584

Total Number of Sentences Reported: Pennsylvania, 2009

Number

Less than 100

100 to 999

1,000 to 1,999

2,000 to 2,999

3,000 to 3,999

4,000 or more


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

standard list of common reasons for departure.free form text entered by the user. All other reasons were selected from a*The word (text) after the reason, indicates the reason was summarized from*More than one reason may be reported for a single offense

Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above theGuidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 2. Reasons Given for Departures Above theGuidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009

Reasons Given for Departures Above the Guidelines Number

Plea (text) 1,212

Recommendation of the prosecution 925

Multiple current convictions 593

Other-Non-standard reasons provided (text) 552

A lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of the crime 376

Recommendation of the court staff/PSI 253

Other-No reason specified 179

Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 140

Recommendation of the defense attorney 110

Commonwealth recommendation (text) 108

Concurrent to other offense. (text) 93

Offender has been previously incarcerated 75

Mandatory (text) 72

Open plea 70

No reason stated on guideline form (text) 61

Offender is a danger to society 58

Credit for time served (text) 53

Judicial discretion (text) 50

Multiple victims 40

Offender is dangerous (text) 35

Drug court (text) 33

Possession of weapon 33

Offender is drug abuser/drug dependent 32

Offender on parole/probation at time of arrest 31

Under supervision (text) 29

Offender attempted/threatened to injure victim 25

Repeat criminal pattern/habitual offender/career criminal 24

Offender is a poor candidate for rehabilitation 23

Multiple offenses (text) 20

DUI offense (text) 19

Offender injured victim 18

Sentenced under mandatory law on other charges 17

Weapon (text) 16

Offender failed on probation/community supervision in past 15

Treatment (text) 15

Offender has mental/emotional/psychological problems 14

Victim particularly vulnerable due to youth 14

Consecutive to other offense (text) 14

Interest of justice (text) 13

Offender inflicted extreme physical cruelty on victim 11

Prior record (text) 11

Offender shows no remorse 11

No remorse (text) 10

Major drug trafficking crime 10

Seriousness of offense (text) 10


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 3. Reasons Given for Departures Below theGuidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 3. Reasons Given for Departures Below theGuidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009

Reasons Given for Departures Below the Guidelines Number

Plea (text) 2,482

Recommendation of the prosecution 2,318

Offender sentenced on other charge(s)-current 996

Other-Non-standard reasons provided (text) 558

Offender pleaded guilty/nolo contendre 557

Commonwealth recommendation (text) 419

Recommendation of the court staff/PSI 312

Other-No reason specified 295

Other-All other standard reasons provided in less than 10 instances 168

Recommendation of the defense attorney 112

No reason stated on guideline form (text) 92

Sentenced on other offense (text) 91

Cooperation (text) 78

Offender serving sentence for other crime(s)-prior 75

Accepts responsibility (text) 64

Offender has mental/emotional/psychological problems 58

Interest of justice (text) 56

Consecutive to other offense (text) 51

Guilt w/o further penalty (text) 48

Offender is drug dependent/needs treatment 48

Judicial discretion (text) 46

Offender shows remorse 38

Mental health issues (text) 31

Keep offender in county jail 29

Offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation 29

Credit for time served (text) 28

Concurrent to other offense (text) 27

Offender on bail or probation or parole on other charges 23

Waiver Court 23

Old or minor prior adult record (text) 20

No prior adult record or minor adult record 19

Offender is in poor physical health/needs hospitalization 19

Prior adult record is very old 17

Family is supportive of offender 16

Offender is supporting or caring for family/wife/other dependents 16

Offender has good reputation in community/good family background 15

Offender waived a jury trial 15

Drug court (text) 14

Recommendation of the victim 14

Offender is employed/might lose job 13

Offender is alcohol dependent/needs treatment 13

Offender is attending school 12

Victim consent (text) 10


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Race (N=94,107); Gender (N=98,737); Type of Conviction (N=97,849); Age (N=98,335)*Because of missing data in each category, the percentages are based on different number of cases for each offender characteristic:*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%

Table 4. Offender Characteristics by County: Pennsylvania, 2009



Race (%) Gender (%) Type of Conviction (%) Age

CountyTotal

Number White Other Female MaleBenchTrial

JuryTrial

Neg.GuiltyPlea

Non-Neg.GuiltyPlea Other Mean

Adams 877 92 8 28 72 <1 <1 93 2 5 31.8

Allegheny 9,988 50 50 19 81 1 <1 93 5 <1 34.1

Armstrong 430 93 7 21 79 <1 4 95 1 - 33.4

Beaver 1,350 76 24 23 77 <1 <1 98 <1 <1 34.0

Bedford 352 96 4 23 77 - 3 97 - <1 33.7

Berks 3,348 66 34 19 81 <1 2 83 14 <1 33.0

Blair 1,840 87 13 26 74 <1 <1 10 89 <1 32.8

Bradford 425 95 5 21 79 <1 <1 100 - - 33.6

Bucks 5,289 82 18 22 78 1 <1 10 88 <1 33.4

Butler 1,420 93 7 26 74 - <1 100 - - 33.4

Cambria 1,517 80 20 24 76 <1 <1 98 <1 <1 33.1

Cameron 35 97 3 17 83 - 6 94 - - 31.1

Carbon 536 95 5 22 78 <1 <1 100 - <1 33.5

Centre 950 88 12 18 82 <1 2 93 3 2 30.2

Chester 2,238 71 29 20 80 <1 <1 42 54 3 33.2

Clarion 342 89 11 19 81 <1 6 89 <1 5 32.3

Clearfield 308 95 5 31 69 <1 1 96 2 - 30.7

Clinton 349 92 8 22 78 - - 99 <1 1 32.1

Columbia 413 93 7 31 69 <1 <1 100 - - 31.4

Crawford 644 94 6 19 81 <1 1 92 4 2 34.1

Cumberland 2,024 85 15 22 78 <1 2 90 6 1 33.2

Dauphin 4,041 53 47 23 77 - 2 22 75 1 33.3

Delaware 6,182 54 46 22 78 1 <1 87 8 3 32.6

Elk 279 97 3 27 73 <1 1 91 6 <1 30.5

Erie 1,783 69 31 21 79 1 3 59 34 2 32.9

Fayette 1,256 84 16 25 75 <1 7 78 <1 15 33.4

Forest 28 81 19 36 64 - 4 96 - - 32.4

Franklin 1,101 84 16 18 82 - - 100 <1 <1 32.4

Fulton 165 88 12 16 84 <1 4 90 4 <1 32.6

Greene 354 96 4 18 82 <1 3 95 1 1 32.6

Huntingdon 224 91 9 22 78 - - 75 24 1 32.0

Indiana 507 91 9 19 81 <1 1 85 12 1 32.2

Jefferson 382 99 1 24 76 <1 <1 85 14 <1 33.7

Juniata 187 94 6 14 86 - 1 74 23 2 31.6

Lackawanna 1,584 75 25 19 81 - <1 100 <1 - 33.2

Lancaster 3,127 82 18 21 79 <1 1 75 23 <1 33.1

Lawrence 690 80 20 28 72 <1 1 98 <1 <1 33.3

Lebanon 1,445 80 20 24 76 <1 4 87 9 - 32.3

Lehigh 2,765 57 43 18 82 <1 1 95 <1 3 32.8

Luzerne 2,211 79 21 21 79 <1 <1 54 45 <1 33.2

Lycoming 1,115 72 28 19 81 <1 2 94 - 3 33.0

McKean 520 94 6 28 72 <1 2 93 - 5 33.1

Mercer 855 81 19 23 77 <1 <1 45 51 3 33.9

Mifflin 530 93 7 23 77 <1 <1 24 73 1 31.6

Monroe 962 73 27 19 81 <1 4 92 2 2 33.7


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal


JuryTrial

Neg.GuiltyPlea


Montgomery 6,176 59 41 22 78 <1 <1 88 10 <1 33.7

Montour 116 89 11 24 76 - <1 100 - - 39.0

Northampton 2,212 65 35 20 80 <1 <1 66 9 24 33.1

Northumberland 765 91 9 21 79 <1 <1 84 9 7 32.2

Perry 441 94 6 22 78 <1 2 90 7 <1 32.8

Philadelphia 7,905 29 71 13 87 14 3 60 21 2 30.9

Pike 347 88 12 26 74 <1 2 96 1 <1 34.9

Potter 127 97 3 20 80 - 5 95 - - 32.7

Schuylkill 1,170 93 7 18 82 <1 2 85 10 2 33.1

Snyder 324 93 7 22 78 <1 <1 95 1 2 21.1

Somerset 454 92 8 18 82 <1 <1 98 <1 - 33.8

Sullivan 50 96 4 10 90 - - 100 - - 30.9

Susquehanna 293 96 4 15 85 - - 98 2 - 34.5

Tioga 187 95 5 14 86 - 2 98 - - 33.2

Union 274 91 9 21 79 <1 - 99 - <1 32.5

Venango 590 94 6 25 75 2 7 89 2 - 34.1

Warren 350 99 1 22 78 - 2 95 2 <1 32.4

Washington 943 83 17 26 74 <1 <1 40 55 5 33.0

Wayne 369 93 7 20 80 - <1 100 - - 33.9

Westmoreland 3,016 88 12 22 78 <1 <1 90 8 <1 33.7

Wyoming 242 98 2 22 78 <1 2 91 6 <1 32.9

York 5,418 78 22 22 78 <1 2 80 14 5 32.5

Total 98,737 70 30 21 79 2 1 74 20 2 32.9

*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%

*Because of missing data in each category, the percentages are based on different numbers of cases for each offender characteristic:

Race: (N=94,107); Gender (N=98,737); Type of Conviction (N=97,849); Age (N=98,335)


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 5. Offender Characteristics by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2009




Offense TypeTotal


JuryTrial

Neg.GuiltyPlea


Arson-F1 (persons) 77 79 21 18 82 3 5 65 24 3 35.5

Arson-F2 (property) 61 84 16 20 80 - 3 74 18 5 30.2

Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI 90 82 18 14 86 - 2 69 24 4 35.3

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 577 39 61 10 90 7 8 64 17 4 29.3

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 893 44 56 16 84 6 2 68 20 4 31.0

Assault-By Life Prisoner 1 100 - - 100 - - - 100 - 23.3

Assault-Reck Endanger 1,075 74 26 19 81 1 1 78 15 4 33.7

Assault-Simple 5,107 65 35 16 84 2 1 76 17 4 32.2

Assault-Terr Threat 1,086 69 31 10 90 2 2 73 18 5 34.0

Bad Checks 1,128 85 15 50 50 <1 <1 80 17 2 36.2

Burg-F1/House-No Person 1,126 83 17 11 89 <1 <1 69 27 3 26.7

Burg-F1/House-Person 354 59 41 10 90 2 6 60 28 5 28.8

Burg-F1/No House-Person 53 66 34 8 92 - 4 66 26 4 30.8

Burglary-F2 1,111 81 19 7 93 <1 2 75 21 2 29.8

Carjacking 39 40 60 15 85 3 5 74 18 - 28.7

Catastrophe 29 68 32 10 90 - - 97 3 - 35.0

Corrupting Minor 611 80 20 18 82 <1 3 78 14 4 32.4

Crim Mischief-F3 100 80 20 6 94 1 - 84 15 - 29.0

Crim Trespass-F2 620 66 34 9 91 3 <1 80 15 2 30.9

Crim Trespass-F3 707 71 29 10 90 2 <1 80 14 3 31.3

DUI-M 13,766 85 15 20 80 <1 <1 76 22 <1 35.7

DUI-M1 8,251 92 8 17 83 <1 <1 74 24 1 38.3

DUI-M2 413 90 10 16 84 <1 <1 84 14 1 39.5

Drug-Felony 10,528 48 52 16 84 3 3 71 21 2 31.1

Drug-Misd 11,203 67 33 19 81 1 <1 78 18 2 30.8

Escape-Felony 425 49 51 14 86 2 <1 64 32 <1 31.7

Escape-Misd 253 57 43 14 86 <1 2 66 30 2 30.4

Forgery-F2 251 71 29 41 59 - 4 76 20 - 33.0

Forgery-F3 678 70 30 42 58 <1 <1 80 19 1 33.5

Forgery-M1 239 81 19 39 61 <1 <1 78 20 1 32.7

Homicide-By Veh (DUI) 8 100 - 13 88 - 13 63 13 13 29.9

Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) 21 90 10 24 76 - 19 57 24 - 34.9

Homicide-By Veh while DUI 44 86 14 27 73 2 14 61 20 2 34.0

Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. 32 40 60 6 94 - 41 41 19 - 30.5

Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. 65 19 81 6 94 5 34 45 15 2 29.5

Homicide-Invol Mansl 63 77 23 27 73 5 6 52 26 11 33.5

Homicide-Murder 1 107 23 77 3 97 16 65 13 4 2 30.2

Homicide-Murder 2 21 17 83 - 100 14 76 5 5 - 26.1

Homicide-Murder 3 180 30 70 10 90 12 18 56 12 2 30.3

Homicide-Vol Mansl 13 33 67 23 77 - 15 46 31 8 29.5

Identity Theft 336 58 42 52 48 <1 <1 77 20 2 34.2


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




Offense TypeTotal


JuryTrial

Neg.GuiltyPlea


Incest 17 76 24 - 100 - - 82 18 - 41.3

Indecent Assault 453 72 28 3 97 <1 4 78 12 6 37.2

Indecent Assault-Agg 101 76 24 - 100 4 10 63 16 7 37.9

Invol Dev Sex Inter 167 83 17 3 97 2 16 62 16 4 40.2

Kidnapping 24 74 26 8 92 - 25 42 29 4 30.7

Other Felony 2,692 65 35 24 76 2 3 70 22 3 33.9

Other Misdemeanor 8,313 70 30 22 78 <1 <1 76 20 3 32.7

Other Misdemeanor 1 2,820 67 33 32 68 2 1 73 20 3 32.6

Rape 150 60 40 1 99 7 23 47 16 7 37.7

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 1,093 35 65 9 91 3 8 62 24 3 26.4

Robbery-F2 470 44 56 10 90 5 2 68 23 3 28.1

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 389 49 51 13 87 3 <1 76 19 2 28.6

Sex. Offender Registry-Fel. 308 60 40 3 97 3 2 80 15 1 38.9

Sex. Offender Registry-Misd. 7 86 14 - 100 14 - 71 14 - 42.5

Sexual Assault 72 57 43 4 96 4 15 62 10 8 36.9

Sexual Assault-Statutory 238 70 30 6 94 1 1 77 12 8 27.1

Stalking/Harassment 718 81 19 14 86 2 <1 73 20 5 36.5

Theft-Felony 3,383 72 28 22 78 1 <1 74 22 2 32.6

Theft-Misd 7,959 78 22 25 75 <1 <1 79 17 3 30.9

Theft-Retail Fel 2,253 58 42 42 58 <1 <1 76 22 2 38.7

Theft-Retail Misd 3,523 74 26 48 52 <1 <1 75 23 2 31.3

VUFA-Felony 1,493 24 76 4 96 12 5 57 24 2 28.0

VUFA-Misd 343 43 57 9 91 4 - 71 23 2 30.4

WMD-Use or Threat 9 100 - 11 89 - - 78 22 - 28.1

Total 98,737 70 30 21 79 2 1 74 20 2 32.9


*Because of missing data in each category, the percentages are based on different numbers of cases for each offender characteristic:

Race: (N=94,107); Gender (N=96,737); Type of Conviction (N=97,849); Age (N=98,335)


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 6. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County: Pennsylvania, 2009



State Prison SIP County Jail CIP Probation Other RS

CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %

Length ofProbation Num %

Adams 877 130 15 23.5 63.8 7 <1 54 6 3.3 13.5 327 37 3.3 325 37 19.6 34 4

Allegheny 9,988 783 8 38.2 79.8 7 <1 1,717 17 5.4 11.5 2,055 21 5.8 4,533 45 19.1 893 9

Armstrong 430 43 10 18.7 42.6 - - 201 47 3.6 23.4 14 3 5.8 151 35 15.4 21 5

Beaver 1,350 80 6 21.6 45.5 - - 527 39 4.0 16.8 5 <1 15.0 723 54 21.2 15 1

Bedford 352 71 20 20.5 58.9 - - 181 51 3.0 17.7 - - - 97 28 17.7 3 <1

Berks 3,348 657 20 28.3 70.2 3 <1 967 29 3.4 16.8 59 2 12.1 1,493 45 24.2 169 5

Blair 1,840 307 17 25.1 52.0 40 2 436 24 3.6 14.5 111 6 4.5 918 50 20.3 28 2

Bradford 425 67 16 19.1 53.6 12 3 199 47 2.1 11.4 9 2 4.1 134 32 14.8 4 <1

Bucks 5,289 368 7 28.4 67.5 7 <1 2,688 51 3.3 14.1 4 <1 34.5 2,081 39 17.6 141 3

Butler 1,420 121 9 23.5 54.2 - - 300 21 3.5 9.9 315 22 4.1 653 46 14.9 31 2

Cambria 1,517 117 8 29.7 68.9 - - 522 34 5.4 19.1 167 11 2.5 675 44 20.9 36 2

Cameron 35 7 20 16.7 34.3 - - 10 29 3.5 15.5 - - - 18 51 13.7 - -

Carbon 536 30 6 18.7 43.1 4 <1 237 44 3.1 17.4 - - - 252 47 12.8 13 2

Centre 950 108 11 18.5 41.3 3 <1 295 31 3.6 16.1 107 11 2.8 437 46 19.2 - -

Chester 2,238 338 15 26.5 58.9 8 <1 1,174 52 2.5 12.4 17 <1 5.0 698 31 20.7 3 <1

Clarion 342 53 15 17.4 38.1 - - 118 35 3.4 17.0 37 11 6.3 132 39 18.5 2 <1

Clearfield 308 79 26 18.5 64.3 - - 23 7 3.1 17.5 - - - 203 66 22.5 3 <1

Clinton 349 58 17 13.3 54.1 - - 168 48 2.6 17.1 - - - 115 33 21.0 8 2

Columbia 413 69 17 19.6 49.6 - - 193 47 2.7 15.6 26 6 4.0 121 29 14.6 4 <1

Crawford 644 85 13 30.0 80.9 - - 304 47 3.0 14.0 82 13 5.6 164 25 17.3 9 1

Cumberland 2,024 161 8 27.6 76.2 14 <1 1,027 51 2.4 15.0 109 5 5.1 623 31 16.4 90 4

Dauphin 4,041 700 17 30.6 66.6 11 <1 737 18 4.1 14.7 784 19 4.4 1,568 39 15.2 241 6

Delaware 6,182 685 11 29.9 64.4 4 <1 3,026 49 3.2 17.3 331 5 4.5 2,066 33 18.0 70 1

Elk 279 27 10 17.4 47.1 6 2 75 27 3.4 17.5 24 9 4.1 147 53 15.1 - -

Erie 1,783 432 24 21.9 59.1 1 <1 422 24 3.9 15.0 397 22 2.6 501 28 21.9 30 2

Fayette 1,256 342 27 18.3 43.3 23 2 220 18 2.7 11.6 266 21 4.6 334 27 14.6 71 6

Forest 28 8 29 19.1 43.0 - - 12 43 1.7 11.5 - - - 8 29 12.8 - -

Franklin 1,101 110 10 21.2 63.1 25 2 531 48 2.5 19.8 23 2 6.3 408 37 21.0 4 <1

Fulton 165 24 15 21.7 63.3 2 1 56 34 2.4 18.3 4 2 5.5 77 47 14.3 2 1

Greene 354 45 13 23.6 60.1 14 4 177 50 2.1 12.8 15 4 9.2 98 28 12.8 5 1

Huntingdon 224 41 18 21.8 56.5 - - 95 42 3.7 15.2 3 1 24.0 85 38 18.2 - -

Indiana 507 47 9 25.2 76.4 4 <1 165 33 2.7 14.3 37 7 3.2 247 49 18.4 7 1

Jefferson 382 33 9 23.9 64.3 3 <1 155 41 2.9 15.1 38 10 7.5 153 40 25.6 - -

Juniata 187 19 10 40.3 85.9 5 3 79 42 3.1 17.4 1 <1 12.0 81 43 16.8 2 1

Lackawanna 1,584 464 29 20.3 50.5 36 2 399 25 3.5 10.9 334 21 2.7 348 22 15.5 3 <1

Lancaster 3,127 538 17 30.7 70.3 48 2 1,173 38 3.0 15.3 215 7 7.0 1,150 37 29.1 3 <1

Lawrence 690 93 13 21.8 49.8 20 3 171 25 4.1 16.6 151 22 3.8 249 36 14.7 6 <1

Lebanon 1,445 237 16 27.0 72.2 - - 465 32 2.7 15.9 102 7 5.5 636 44 12.4 5 <1

Lehigh 2,765 404 15 31.4 76.4 - - 1,005 36 5.1 20.6 340 12 5.9 925 33 19.7 91 3

Luzerne 2,211 357 16 24.1 49.7 1 <1 810 37 3.7 12.0 377 17 6.0 666 30 10.1 - -

Lycoming 1,115 228 20 21.5 55.4 13 1 219 20 2.5 12.2 317 28 2.9 296 27 19.8 42 4

McKean 520 63 12 23.5 58.7 - - 204 39 2.4 20.9 37 7 2.4 202 39 12.2 14 3

Mercer 855 111 13 20.0 53.6 2 <1 391 46 3.6 15.4 51 6 0.4 280 33 20.3 20 2

Mifflin 530 70 13 24.9 57.8 18 3 189 36 2.5 16.7 45 8 4.1 174 33 9.7 34 6

Monroe 962 148 15 26.2 59.4 5 <1 549 57 3.8 13.3 113 12 1.9 141 15 14.2 6 <1


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Montgomery 6,176 470 8 31.2 73.2 25 <1 2,706 44 4.1 20.1 110 2 3.9 2,860 46 23.0 5 <1

Montour 116 27 23 23.7 58.2 - - 61 53 4.0 15.3 - - - 26 22 12.1 2 2

Northampton 2,212 201 9 20.2 52.4 2 <1 898 41 3.0 14.7 142 6 4.1 865 39 11.6 104 5

Northumberland 765 102 13 17.3 46.0 1 <1 193 25 3.1 14.9 130 17 8.4 327 43 15.6 12 2

Perry 441 50 11 33.6 78.9 - - 141 32 3.3 16.6 1 <1 12.0 242 55 16.7 7 2

Philadelphia 7,905 2,157 27 42.7 93.0 82 1 2,216 28 8.0 21.8 712 9 12.5 2,358 30 36.9 380 5

Pike 347 67 19 20.8 58.6 1 <1 206 59 2.6 17.4 - - - 70 20 13.0 3 <1

Potter 127 13 10 17.7 51.7 2 2 61 48 3.5 22.1 2 2 1.2 45 35 17.1 4 3

Schuylkill 1,170 210 18 16.4 40.2 18 2 383 33 2.4 15.5 94 8 2.9 465 40 15.1 - -

Snyder 324 54 17 19.1 59.3 - - 121 37 2.8 11.6 14 4 34.5 125 39 19.2 10 3

Somerset 454 99 22 17.5 52.9 17 4 141 31 2.0 17.1 35 8 4.6 159 35 18.4 3 <1

Sullivan 50 3 6 5.1 28.0 - - 25 50 1.1 9.1 3 6 3.0 19 38 12.6 - -

Susquehanna 293 14 5 48.1 118 - - 114 39 3.1 15.9 5 2 1.3 157 54 15.3 3 1

Tioga 187 28 15 33.8 74.1 2 1 41 22 4.1 19.0 68 36 3.9 48 26 16.6 - -

Union 274 49 18 11.3 51.4 4 1 89 32 2.4 13.2 34 12 7.0 97 35 23.2 1 <1

Venango 590 94 16 22.9 60.6 4 <1 250 42 3.5 21.1 3 <1 0.1 232 39 29.1 7 1

Warren 350 74 21 15.2 38.4 1 <1 153 44 2.4 15.1 37 11 6.9 83 24 21.3 2 <1

Washington 943 99 10 25.4 54.2 5 <1 317 34 2.9 12.5 95 10 8.4 427 45 17.3 - -

Wayne 369 77 21 14.8 45.4 3 <1 205 56 2.1 16.5 9 2 2.0 75 20 12.1 - -

Westmoreland 3,016 252 8 34.0 78.4 39 1 852 28 4.0 18.5 641 21 7.3 1,093 36 15.8 139 5

Wyoming 242 39 16 13.2 45.8 - - 80 33 3.3 15.7 38 16 4.4 80 33 12.6 5 2

York 5,418 572 11 33.7 75.8 23 <1 2,142 40 3.4 17.4 454 8 5.6 2,197 41 18.1 30 <1

Total 98,737 13,709 14 29.1 67.8 575 <1 34,061 34 3.8 16.3 10,076 10 5.6 37,436 38 19.8 2,880 3

Percent of Sentences to County Intermediate Punishment: Pennsylvania, 2009

Percent County Intermediate Punishment Sentences

None

Less than 5%

5% to 9%

10% to 14%

15% to 19%

20% or more



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 6A. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County (Felonies Only): Pennsylvania, 2009




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Adams 239 104 44 27.0 72.5 7 3 15 6 5.2 23.0 67 28 6.4 45 19 33.5 1 <1

Allegheny 3,327 702 21 41.4 86.7 6 <1 706 21 8.9 19.2 315 9 13.9 1,227 37 30.2 371 11

Armstrong 116 31 27 21.4 45.2 - - 48 41 6.8 22.7 7 6 5.6 27 23 35.8 3 3

Beaver 260 56 22 25.4 53.4 - - 119 46 7.7 22.4 2 <1 24.0 80 31 38.5 3 1

Bedford 110 46 42 26.6 70.5 - - 52 47 6.1 23.5 - - - 12 11 34.8 - -

Berks 1,076 531 49 33.1 79.4 3 <1 265 25 6.5 23.4 34 3 8.4 242 22 48.3 1 <1

Blair 652 276 42 26.9 55.5 31 5 127 19 7.5 20.4 14 2 13.0 200 31 37.1 4 <1

Bradford 89 31 35 31.9 86.3 5 6 28 31 5.0 20.2 2 2 3.0 22 25 18.0 1 1

Bucks 1,281 288 22 33.5 79.1 5 <1 583 46 7.2 23.7 3 <1 42.0 380 30 31.7 22 2

Butler 287 77 27 31.3 67.9 - - 98 34 5.6 13.1 58 20 6.8 52 18 24.7 2 <1

Cambria 288 81 28 38.6 87.5 - - 128 44 8.3 24.5 11 4 3.7 66 23 38.3 2 <1

Cameron 14 6 43 17.5 36.0 - - 7 50 4.3 16.2 - - - 1 7 24.0 - -

Carbon 79 16 20 29.0 62.9 1 1 53 67 7.7 24.8 - - - 9 11 30.7 - -

Centre 258 71 28 24.5 51.5 1 <1 99 38 6.1 19.4 1 <1 6.0 86 33 35.5 - -

Chester 540 242 45 32.8 71.8 7 1 194 36 6.5 21.6 6 1 10.3 91 17 44.2 - -

Clarion 114 43 38 18.4 38.7 - - 42 37 5.7 20.0 12 11 9.3 16 14 34.5 1 <1

Clearfield 109 55 50 23.2 78.1 - - 11 10 5.0 17.4 - - - 43 39 28.2 - -

Clinton 71 42 59 15.3 59.1 - - 23 32 5.7 25.6 - - - 6 8 50.0 - -

Columbia 103 50 49 23.1 56.8 - - 41 40 4.5 21.9 3 3 5.7 9 9 22.2 - -

Crawford 156 63 40 36.6 95.0 - - 69 44 5.6 19.8 10 6 6.0 14 9 43.3 - -

Cumberland 412 118 29 34.2 90.0 3 <1 166 40 6.1 22.1 4 <1 19.0 116 28 28.5 5 1

Dauphin 1,295 600 46 33.8 73.1 9 <1 203 16 7.7 22.3 168 13 7.5 296 23 31.3 19 1

Delaware 1,809 567 31 34.1 72.9 1 <1 874 48 6.2 23.3 54 3 13.7 311 17 32.7 2 <1

Elk 64 17 27 24.2 62.9 - - 26 41 6.3 24.4 - - - 21 33 30.0 - -

Erie 444 238 54 32.2 83.0 - - 102 23 6.1 18.6 32 7 6.5 71 16 43.4 1 <1

Fayette 441 240 54 22.4 51.5 8 2 42 10 6.3 17.7 56 13 7.9 58 13 24.3 37 8

Forest 9 5 56 24.2 56.0 - - 3 33 2.9 10.0 - - - 1 11 12.0 - -

Franklin 234 76 32 26.9 74.7 6 3 76 32 4.9 22.3 17 7 6.6 57 24 37.2 2 <1

Fulton 36 18 50 26.8 71.3 1 3 7 19 4.1 19.4 1 3 4.0 9 25 19.0 - -

Greene 97 34 35 28.1 71.6 2 2 36 37 4.4 19.3 7 7 9.9 17 18 18.0 1 1

Huntingdon 61 29 48 25.8 63.4 - - 13 21 7.0 18.8 3 5 24.0 16 26 31.4 - -

Indiana 66 29 44 34.3 99.0 1 2 20 30 7.9 22.1 6 9 8.5 10 15 30.0 - -

Jefferson 110 25 23 29.0 77.7 2 2 41 37 5.6 23.0 15 14 15.7 27 25 44.9 - -

Juniata 39 16 41 45.9 95.3 1 3 12 31 7.0 23.8 - - - 10 26 31.2 - -

Lackawanna 517 301 58 26.7 64.3 24 5 97 19 5.8 15.6 37 7 4.5 57 11 26.1 1 <1

Lancaster 1,101 452 41 34.7 76.7 39 4 366 33 5.9 23.4 2 <1 9.0 241 22 50.5 1 <1

Lawrence 212 68 32 26.7 60.8 13 6 76 36 6.2 21.2 12 6 5.0 43 20 23.0 - -

Lebanon 332 172 52 33.8 87.5 - - 88 27 4.9 22.7 19 6 10.9 53 16 19.6 - -

Lehigh 945 342 36 35.5 85.6 - - 391 41 7.6 24.0 29 3 19.0 181 19 34.9 2 <1

Luzerne 681 267 39 29.2 59.7 - - 260 38 7.2 17.7 49 7 10.3 105 15 13.8 - -

Lycoming 350 162 46 26.8 63.0 3 <1 50 14 6.2 20.9 50 14 6.2 85 24 32.6 - -

McKean 109 45 41 29.6 69.4 - - 41 38 6.0 20.4 - - - 22 20 22.6 1 <1

Mercer 209 75 36 25.6 66.5 1 <1 83 40 6.5 20.9 1 <1 6.0 46 22 32.2 3 1

Mifflin 164 59 36 28.0 63.0 15 9 52 32 5.1 18.0 14 9 2.8 21 13 12.0 3 2

Monroe 227 106 47 32.6 73.4 3 1 100 44 7.1 19.6 2 <1 0.5 16 7 24.7 - -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Montgomery 1,748 417 24 33.8 77.3 15 <1 822 47 7.5 24.1 17 <1 6.8 476 27 43.7 1 <1

Montour 30 24 80 25.3 61.5 - - 6 20 9.2 28.5 - - - - - - - -

Northampton 357 129 36 26.0 60.3 - - 180 50 6.7 19.8 4 1 3.7 44 12 20.3 - -

Northumberland 235 77 33 20.2 52.2 - - 63 27 5.6 21.3 32 14 23.3 63 27 26.0 - -

Perry 111 40 36 39.6 91.1 - - 36 32 5.6 21.0 - - - 29 26 40.6 6 5

Philadelphia 5,941 2,070 35 44.0 95.7 74 1 1,713 29 8.9 23.5 638 11 12.5 1,242 21 46.2 204 3

Pike 74 42 57 28.9 72.0 1 1 28 38 6.1 24.1 - - - 3 4 20.0 - -

Potter 38 10 26 19.7 57.6 2 5 23 61 6.2 23.0 1 3 1.5 2 5 41.7 - -

Schuylkill 308 129 42 21.9 46.6 14 5 109 35 4.3 18.9 5 2 5.2 51 17 23.0 - -

Snyder 64 18 28 39.6 112 - - 24 38 6.9 19.3 9 14 46.7 13 20 42.5 - -

Somerset 89 41 46 31.5 86.3 8 9 23 26 4.2 20.6 2 2 7.5 15 17 35.2 - -

Sullivan 2 - - - - - - 1 50 0.7 23.5 - - - 1 50 18.0 - -

Susquehanna 53 12 23 54.1 130 - - 23 43 4.5 20.2 - - - 18 34 36.2 - -

Tioga 43 17 40 44.5 93.8 1 2 12 28 8.7 23.5 10 23 11.0 3 7 60.0 - -

Union 76 35 46 12.9 54.5 - - 19 25 6.4 20.5 9 12 11.3 13 17 44.4 - -

Venango 173 52 30 29.3 73.3 4 2 58 34 7.0 21.7 - - - 59 34 50.1 - -

Warren 84 40 48 20.6 47.4 1 1 30 36 4.3 20.0 2 2 7.5 11 13 53.5 - -

Washington 236 74 31 30.4 64.8 3 1 64 27 6.0 19.3 29 12 10.4 66 28 36.3 - -

Wayne 82 41 50 21.1 57.7 3 4 33 40 4.5 20.6 - - - 5 6 31.2 - -

Westmoreland 910 219 24 37.2 85.1 26 3 305 34 6.7 22.4 131 14 12.3 186 20 23.5 43 5

Wyoming 52 20 38 18.8 67.8 - - 22 42 6.3 22.0 6 12 3.0 4 8 19.5 - -

York 1,458 475 33 38.1 83.4 9 <1 484 33 7.2 22.5 47 3 9.5 442 30 32.3 1 <1

Total 31,297 10,854 35 34.3 77.8 359 1 10,011 32 7.2 22.1 2,065 7 11.3 7,264 23 35.9 744 2

Percent of Felony Sentences to County Jail: Pennsylvania, 2009

Percent County Jail Sentences

Less than 25% 25% to 32% 33% to 49% 50% or More



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 7. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2009




Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Arson-F1 (persons) 77 47 61 43.7 98.9 - - 21 27 11.6 24.8 - - - 7 9 56.6 2 3

Arson-F2 (property) 61 18 30 16.4 47.0 - - 25 41 8.8 24.9 - - - 16 26 49.1 2 3

Assault-Agg By Vehwhile DUI

90 26 29 19.2 58.5 - - 49 54 9.7 24.2 9 10 12.1 5 6 40.6 1 1

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 577 415 72 54.2 120 1 <1 113 20 13.0 28.8 2 <1 12.0 30 5 48.5 16 3

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 893 265 30 21.5 51.1 - - 488 55 8.7 22.7 - - - 121 14 43.1 19 2

Assault-By Life Prisoner 1 1 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Assault-Reck Endanger 1,075 50 5 8.8 22.1 1 <1 350 33 3.4 17.4 42 4 4.7 585 54 18.6 47 4

Assault-Simple 5,107 227 4 9.1 22.8 - - 1,718 34 3.8 18.2 176 3 4.7 2,888 57 17.4 98 2

Assault-Terr Threat 1,086 78 7 11.4 32.8 - - 451 42 4.3 19.5 28 3 5.3 507 47 26.4 22 2

Bad Checks 1,128 51 5 7.3 22.3 - - 166 15 2.5 16.8 9 <1 6.0 858 76 18.2 44 4

Burg-F1/House-NoPerson

1,126 509 45 26.1 64.5 13 1 435 39 8.5 23.1 9 <1 9.1 126 11 42.2 34 3

Burg-F1/House-Person 354 199 56 38.5 87.1 3 <1 109 31 12.1 26.6 1 <1 11.0 31 9 44.1 11 3

Burg-F1/NoHouse-Person

53 19 36 35.7 81.5 2 4 24 45 8.0 20.0 - - - 6 11 46.8 2 4

Burglary-F2 1,111 337 30 19.7 49.8 13 1 458 41 6.8 22.5 66 6 10.6 214 19 42.6 23 2

Carjacking 39 27 69 43.1 97.5 - - 6 15 10.6 23.0 - - - 5 13 62.4 1 3

Catastrophe 29 4 14 20.3 57.0 - - 15 52 5.7 19.7 4 14 8.5 6 21 32.0 - -

Corrupting Minor 611 54 9 12.3 36.8 - - 155 25 4.7 19.4 22 4 4.8 364 60 30.0 16 3

Crim Mischief-F3 100 10 10 13.4 37.6 - - 40 40 6.0 21.0 4 4 9.8 38 38 40.6 8 8

Crim Trespass-F2 620 83 13 13.9 43.1 4 <1 309 50 5.7 20.5 26 4 9.4 186 30 32.6 12 2

Crim Trespass-F3 707 90 13 11.3 33.9 8 1 298 42 4.8 19.7 26 4 5.9 273 39 30.1 12 2

DUI-M 13,766 118 <1 0.8 6.2 8 <1 9,224 67 0.3 5.6 3,266 24 1.2 1,145 8 5.9 5 <1

DUI-M1 8,251 842 10 12.1 42.1 140 2 3,807 46 4.6 27.2 3,460 42 6.4 2 <1 24.0 - -

DUI-M2 413 17 4 5.7 21.5 4 <1 308 75 1.1 15.7 83 20 3.8 1 <1 24.0 - -

Drug-Felony 10,528 3,976 38 27.5 61.4 241 2 2,748 26 7.3 22.4 1,310 12 12.3 2,064 20 34.3 189 2

Drug-Misd 11,203 224 2 6.9 17.7 18 <1 1,960 17 2.7 11.6 287 3 6.0 7,622 68 10.4 1,092 10

Escape-Felony 425 193 45 14.5 35.6 1 <1 170 40 7.1 20.0 - - - 49 12 25.7 12 3

Escape-Misd 253 26 10 9.6 22.8 - - 126 50 4.8 17.2 - - - 96 38 15.3 5 2

Forgery-F2 251 39 16 13.2 35.2 7 3 98 39 4.8 20.1 15 6 9.1 89 35 28.1 3 1

Forgery-F3 678 68 10 12.6 34.9 6 <1 201 30 4.6 21.0 22 3 11.2 371 55 33.1 10 1

Forgery-M1 239 16 7 8.9 33.6 1 <1 47 20 4.3 19.1 7 3 5.0 165 69 23.4 3 1

Homicide-By Veh (DUI) 8 4 50 18.0 51.0 - - 4 50 7.3 23.3 - - - - - - - -

Homicide-By Veh (NoDUI)

21 6 29 14.8 46.7 - - 14 67 8.1 22.8 1 5 18.0 - - - - -

Homicide-By Veh whileDUI

44 44 100 42.1 90.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Homicide-Inchoate-NoS.B.I.

32 32 100 93.8 204 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Homicide-Inchoate-withS.B.I.

65 60 92 152 318 - - 1 2 11.5 23.0 - - - 1 2 72.0 3 5

Homicide-Invol Mansl 63 19 30 19.8 45.9 - - 25 40 9.8 25.4 6 10 7.0 11 17 44.2 2 3

Homicide-Murder 1 107 106 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 <1

Homicide-Murder 2 21 21 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Homicide-Murder 3 180 179 100 179 373 - - 1 <1 240 480 - - - - - - - -

Homicide-Vol Mansl 13 11 85 68.7 163 - - 1 8 11.5 23.0 - - - 1 8 60.0 - -

Identity Theft 336 34 10 14.3 41.1 2 <1 112 33 4.5 20.6 16 5 6.5 161 48 32.7 11 3


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Incest 17 10 59 31.4 84.4 - - 7 41 11.6 23.4 - - - - - - - -

Indecent Assault 453 83 18 17.0 45.2 - - 200 44 5.9 20.2 - - - 161 36 30.2 9 2

Indecent Assault-Agg 101 81 80 50.9 111 - - 14 14 13.1 28.4 - - - 5 5 74.4 1 <1

Invol Dev Sex Inter 167 159 95 85.1 186 - - 1 <1 21.5 44.0 - - - 4 2 105 3 2

Kidnapping 24 18 75 57.3 129 - - 6 25 11.8 35.2 - - - - - - - -

Other Felony 2,692 585 22 18.8 50.1 16 <1 909 34 6.4 21.2 158 6 8.1 925 34 37.5 99 4

Other Misdemeanor 8,313 239 3 5.5 16.4 8 <1 1,781 21 2.4 13.7 189 2 3.9 5,745 69 13.1 351 4

Other Misdemeanor 1 2,820 159 6 11.7 32.9 5 <1 687 24 4.4 19.4 121 4 6.9 1,712 61 25.8 136 5

Rape 150 146 97 89.8 195 - - 1 <1 3.0 23.5 - - - 2 1 78.0 1 <1

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 1,093 900 82 57.2 128 1 <1 135 12 13.6 29.4 1 <1 9.0 31 3 63.5 25 2

Robbery-F2 470 191 41 23.9 58.4 1 <1 230 49 9.3 23.8 5 1 19.2 36 8 48.0 7 1

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 389 88 23 17.7 48.6 - - 229 59 6.7 21.6 3 <1 2.0 60 15 38.8 9 2

Sex. OffenderRegistry-Fel.

308 126 41 26.5 57.7 - - 98 32 7.8 19.4 7 2 12.8 76 25 50.6 1 <1

Sex. OffenderRegistry-Misd.

7 1 14 12.0 24.0 - - 1 14 0.5 1.0 - - - 5 71 13.8 - -

Sexual Assault 72 54 75 36.9 77.9 - - 10 14 8.7 22.4 - - - 5 7 50.4 3 4

Sexual Assault-Statutory 238 63 26 19.3 52.8 - - 148 62 8.5 22.5 - - - 25 11 56.5 2 <1

Stalking/Harassment 718 34 5 12.6 36.0 - - 176 25 3.4 14.5 18 3 7.2 471 66 14.1 19 3

Theft-Felony 3,383 608 18 15.9 40.9 23 <1 1,255 37 6.1 21.4 175 5 10.0 1,189 35 38.2 133 4

Theft-Misd 7,959 537 7 9.5 28.3 21 <1 1,977 25 3.6 17.9 216 3 6.1 4,995 63 20.4 213 3

Theft-Retail Fel 2,253 296 13 11.5 33.4 12 <1 884 39 5.2 20.5 158 7 8.6 858 38 27.1 45 2

Theft-Retail Misd 3,523 86 2 6.4 24.8 10 <1 771 22 2.4 18.0 60 2 5.8 2,528 72 18.7 68 2

VUFA-Felony 1,493 685 46 34.8 74.0 5 <1 376 25 9.5 23.7 52 3 13.2 331 22 42.4 44 3

VUFA-Misd 343 14 4 10.4 31.4 - - 83 24 4.5 19.1 16 5 5.4 225 66 26.7 5 1

WMD-Use or Threat 9 1 11 12.0 24.0 - - 5 56 4.7 23.1 - - - 3 33 26.0 - -

Total 98,737 13,709 14 29.1 67.8 575 <1 34,061 34 3.8 16.3 10,076 10 5.6 37,436 38 19.8 2,880 3



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 8. Summary of Sentences Imposed for Drug Offenses by County: Pennsylvania, 2009




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Adams 174 50 29 33.5 82.1 4 2 8 5 2.4 7.5 29 17 6.2 52 30 13.3 31 18

Allegheny 2,569 249 10 28.7 60.1 5 <1 279 11 6.0 13.1 244 9 13.6 1,524 59 14.2 268 10

Armstrong 95 10 11 27.6 55.2 - - 18 19 4.4 18.7 8 8 6.0 48 51 10.0 11 12

Beaver 178 14 8 24.2 50.6 - - 32 18 5.3 16.1 - - - 130 73 13.5 2 1

Bedford 38 12 32 25.5 59.3 - - 16 42 3.7 19.2 - - - 10 26 13.2 - -

Berks 929 277 30 28.7 64.1 1 <1 104 11 5.4 20.8 14 2 7.1 370 40 19.1 163 18

Blair 509 182 36 24.0 49.2 30 6 76 15 7.1 19.0 13 3 13.5 196 39 23.8 12 2

Bradford 45 9 20 9.6 28.0 6 13 16 36 2.3 12.1 - - - 14 31 13.1 - -

Bucks 1,008 97 10 28.8 63.6 4 <1 210 21 7.1 21.5 2 <1 54.0 626 62 13.8 69 7

Butler 218 22 10 16.8 38.5 - - 18 8 4.7 12.1 31 14 7.9 135 62 10.9 12 6

Cambria 234 28 12 20.4 50.5 - - 80 34 6.8 19.8 11 5 3.3 110 47 12.0 5 2

Cameron 12 5 42 18.6 38.4 - - 2 17 0.9 12.0 - - - 5 42 8.4 - -

Carbon 63 4 6 9.3 24.5 - - 23 37 5.2 19.0 - - - 31 49 11.0 5 8

Centre 276 40 14 26.0 52.7 - - 88 32 5.2 15.7 6 2 2.6 142 51 15.5 - -

Chester 393 89 23 34.4 75.2 7 2 112 28 3.7 14.3 2 <1 12.0 182 46 16.7 1 <1

Clarion 83 23 28 20.9 41.7 - - 22 27 4.4 17.4 13 16 8.5 25 30 13.2 - -

Clearfield 32 7 22 15.5 46.3 - - 1 3 3.0 12.0 - - - 22 69 22.9 2 6

Clinton 28 4 14 13.5 45.0 - - 12 43 2.9 11.9 - - - 7 25 12.0 5 18

Columbia 56 5 9 17.4 46.8 - - 21 38 4.2 16.8 - - - 28 50 11.8 2 4

Crawford 94 17 18 20.4 69.2 - - 36 38 3.6 16.5 10 11 6.7 24 26 9.5 7 7

Cumberland 241 26 11 31.8 71.8 1 <1 63 26 5.0 19.5 - - - 114 47 12.6 37 15

Dauphin 1,046 261 25 26.0 57.2 6 <1 124 12 5.1 16.9 121 12 6.4 404 39 9.5 130 12

Delaware 1,853 262 14 25.4 52.8 - - 640 35 3.4 18.0 37 2 17.1 863 47 12.6 51 3

Elk 44 6 14 14.8 42.0 - - 4 9 2.1 18.0 1 2 1.0 33 75 12.5 - -

Erie 224 57 25 31.5 73.5 - - 36 16 3.7 12.0 21 9 2.7 90 40 18.8 20 9

Fayette 270 96 36 15.2 35.7 8 3 27 10 3.6 13.8 52 19 5.3 70 26 10.2 17 6

Forest 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 12.0 - -

Franklin 170 30 18 19.4 56.7 3 2 34 20 4.1 20.3 11 6 4.8 91 54 13.8 1 <1

Fulton 28 5 18 36.0 74.4 - - 3 11 3.8 13.7 1 4 4.0 19 68 9.6 - -

Greene 54 7 13 26.6 74.6 - - 15 28 1.6 13.3 5 9 7.4 26 48 9.8 1 2

Huntingdon 45 17 38 17.2 45.2 - - 4 9 5.1 15.0 3 7 24.0 21 47 18.0 - -

Indiana 65 5 8 24.0 57.6 - - 5 8 8.2 18.6 1 2 9.0 53 82 10.7 1 2

Jefferson 83 6 7 10.3 28.0 1 1 24 29 4.9 22.0 13 16 11.2 39 47 21.7 - -

Juniata 42 5 12 19.2 40.8 1 2 7 17 5.6 15.7 - - - 27 64 16.5 2 5

Lackawanna 399 148 37 23.3 56.9 17 4 98 25 4.2 11.2 53 13 3.3 83 21 16.0 - -

Lancaster 395 164 42 33.3 70.9 32 8 78 20 5.3 21.4 1 <1 9.0 118 30 23.0 2 <1

Lawrence 52 13 25 19.8 54.5 - - 17 33 5.0 18.3 - - - 18 35 7.2 4 8

Lebanon 371 88 24 27.0 66.3 - - 74 20 2.8 14.2 11 3 6.9 194 52 10.0 4 1

Lehigh 620 128 21 24.6 63.2 - - 208 34 6.0 21.0 17 3 19.5 207 33 22.3 60 10

Luzerne 355 113 32 26.5 54.7 - - 108 30 5.8 15.2 22 6 9.3 112 32 8.7 - -

Lycoming 212 68 32 19.6 46.0 - - 18 8 3.8 14.9 23 11 6.6 81 38 19.7 22 10

McKean 75 5 7 10.3 23.0 - - 22 29 4.9 16.7 - - - 36 48 10.6 12 16

Mercer 95 16 17 13.4 41.3 1 1 26 27 5.2 18.2 - - - 44 46 17.7 8 8

Mifflin 119 27 23 18.5 40.9 11 9 19 16 3.3 14.1 8 7 4.2 42 35 9.9 12 10

Monroe 132 30 23 17.5 43.4 2 2 64 48 4.4 15.0 6 5 0.5 26 20 11.4 4 3


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Montgomery 1,428 169 12 29.4 65.4 8 <1 357 25 6.3 20.7 6 <1 8.8 886 62 17.0 2 <1

Montour 24 7 29 9.0 30.9 - - 10 42 6.5 19.8 - - - 7 29 14.6 - -

Northampton 470 48 10 27.9 57.6 - - 159 34 4.5 14.2 2 <1 2.0 195 41 9.0 66 14

Northumberland 176 15 9 14.3 40.5 - - 29 16 3.6 19.5 23 13 24.6 103 59 14.2 6 3

Perry 57 5 9 12.6 36.0 - - 20 35 1.7 11.3 - - - 32 56 12.0 - -

Philadelphia 2,896 828 29 28.6 63.9 67 2 615 21 8.4 21.9 621 21 12.5 602 21 32.2 163 6

Pike 53 10 19 26.1 52.2 1 2 27 51 4.0 14.6 - - - 13 25 10.7 2 4

Potter 16 5 31 13.2 33.6 2 13 3 19 1.7 23.5 1 6 1.5 4 25 11.3 1 6

Schuylkill 227 51 22 19.4 39.9 10 4 49 22 3.7 16.5 7 3 5.7 110 48 10.4 - -

Snyder 43 3 7 11.0 34.0 - - 5 12 5.0 18.0 11 26 36.0 19 44 13.3 5 12

Somerset 53 9 17 16.8 60.0 2 4 16 30 4.1 12.7 2 4 7.5 22 42 15.4 2 4

Sullivan 4 - - - - - - 1 25 0.6 6.0 - - - 3 75 8.0 - -

Susquehanna 20 2 10 12.0 54.0 - - 7 35 4.9 17.9 - - - 11 55 10.8 - -

Tioga 29 6 21 18.0 42.0 - - 9 31 7.1 21.1 3 10 3.3 11 38 6.8 - -

Union 41 12 29 10.3 49.0 - - 4 10 7.3 20.3 6 15 12.5 19 46 13.8 - -

Venango 100 20 20 17.4 50.7 1 1 15 15 6.0 17.1 - - - 59 59 34.8 5 5

Warren 56 14 25 13.9 34.6 1 2 21 38 2.6 13.3 2 4 7.5 17 30 18.4 1 2

Washington 175 18 10 11.9 24.8 - - 39 22 3.3 13.8 8 5 4.5 110 63 12.9 - -

Wayne 78 12 15 10.7 34.5 2 3 44 56 2.6 13.9 - - - 20 26 9.3 - -

Westmoreland 540 42 8 32.0 69.7 17 3 110 20 5.3 17.3 78 14 13.2 275 51 11.0 18 3

Wyoming 47 6 13 20.5 52.0 - - 15 32 2.8 13.6 7 15 3.0 16 34 11.6 3 6

York 1,173 191 16 29.3 65.8 8 <1 261 22 5.4 17.0 30 3 12.0 659 56 13.1 24 2

Total 21,731 4,200 19 26.4 59.1 259 1 4,708 22 5.4 17.9 1,597 7 11.2 9,686 45 15.5 1,281 6

Percent of Sentences to County Intermediate Punishment Imposed for Drug Offenses:

Pennsylvania, 2009


None

Less than 5%

5% to 9%

10% to 14%

15% to 19%

More than 20%



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Due

to ro

undi

ng, p

erce

ntag

es m

ay n

ot to

tal 1

00%

Tabl

e 9.

Sen

tenc

es Im

pose

d fo

r Dru

g O

ffens

es: P

enns

ylva

nia,

200

9

*Due

to ro

undi

ng, p

erce

ntag

es m

ay n

ot to

tal 1

00%

Tabl

e 9.

Sen

tenc

es Im

pose

d fo

r Dru

g O

ffens

es: P

enns

ylva

nia,

200

9

Type

of D

rug

Sta

te P

rison

SIP

Cou

nty

Jail

CIP

Pro

batio

nO

ther

RS

Dru

g C

ateg

ory

Am

ount

Tota

lN

umbe

rN

um%

Mea

nM

inM

ean

Max

Num

%N

um%

Mea

nM

inM

ean

Max

Num

%Le

ngth

of R

IPN

um%

Leng

th o

fP

roba

tion

Num

%

Coc

aine

, Met

h., P

CP

< 2.

5 g

2,59

01,

058

4122

.250

.858

277

930

7.9

22.3

262

1012

.236

814

36.9

653

2.5-

<10

g1,

340

654

4926

.860

.330

228

121

10.2

26.0

221

1613

.212

19

39.8

332

10-<

50 g

769

497

6536

.980

.520

310

213

10.4

25.3

8411

15.1

537

49.7

132

50-<

100

g17

312

975

40.2

87.5

21

2012

10.9

23.4

106

13.9

127

51.0

--

100-

1000

g20

917

182

52.3

111

2<1

147

12.0

25.4

73

16.6

126

62.9

31

>100

0 g

3830

7961

.713

5-

-5

1323

.951

.3-

--

13

60.0

25

Sub

tota

l5,

119

2,53

950

29.7

66.0

112

21,

201

238.

823

.658

411

13.1

567

1139

.611

62

Des

igne

r Dru

gsD

esig

ner D

rugs

3-

--

--

-1

3311

.523

.02

6712

.0-

--

--

Sub

tota

l3

--

--

--

133

11.5

23.0

267

12.0

--

--

-

Ecs

tasy

1-<5

0 pi

lls (6

th E

d.)

274

1515

.363

.0-

-11

413.

513

.92

713

.510

3724

.6-

-

50-<

100

pills

(6th

Ed.

)5

--

--

--

360

5.1

26.0

--

-2

4048

.0-

-

100-

<100

0 pi

lls (6

th E

d.)

62

3330

.060

.0-

-2

3313

.031

.5-

--

233

42.0

--

>=10

00 p

ills

(6th

Ed.

)2

210

036

.072

.0-

--

--

--

--

--

--

-

Sub

tota

l40

820

24.1

64.5

--

1640

5.0

18.4

25

13.5

1435

30.4

--

Look

-Alik

e D

rugs

Look

-Alik

e D

rugs

22

100

15.0

30.0

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Sub

tota

l2

210

015

.030

.0-

--

--

--

--

--

--

-

Mar

ijuan

aS

mal

l Am

ount

1,39

36

<10.

51.

01

<116

612

0.3

0.9

4<1

0.9

690

501.

052

638

<1 lb

/<10

pla

nts

1,39

518

213

17.7

41.0

10<1

517

373.

919

.882

67.

058

942

27.5

151

1-<1

0 lb

s/10

-<21

pla

nts

214

5124

20.8

49.1

1<1

7937

7.3

23.2

2512

7.1

5626

33.8

2<1

10-<

50 lb

s/21

-<50

pla

nts

6523

3525

.553

.71

220

318.

823

.68

1211

.913

2037

.4-

-

>=51

pla

nts

(5th

Ed.

)23

1148

25.9

45.1

14

626

11.6

31.5

29

6.0

313

52.0

--

50-1

000

lbs/

50-1

000

plan

ts17

1271

35.5

65.0

--

16

5.6

23.0

16

14.8

318

40.0

--

Sub

tota

l3,

107

285

919

.643

.814

<178

925

3.7

16.4

122

47.

21,

354

4414

.454

317

Met

h, M

anuf

w/C

hild

No

Bod

.Inj.

to C

hild

(6th

Ed.

)2

150

24.0

48.0

--

--

--

--

-1

5012

.0-

-

Sub

tota

l2

150

24.0

48.0

--

--

--

--

-1

5012

.0-

-

Nar

cotic

s<

2.5

g50

961

1220

.146

.123

590

187.

823

.220

240

12.1

128

2537

.25

<1

2.5-

<10

g72

2839

22.0

47.4

11

1622

12.2

25.6

1521

12.0

1115

27.3

11

10-<

50 g

116

8170

33.4

72.4

1<1

1412

9.6

23.3

1210

12.3

76

89.7

1<1

50-<

100

g18

1267

46.3

97.7

16

211

39.0

78.0

--

-3

1728

.0-

-

100-

1000

g24

1563

54.1

119

28

417

6.9

19.3

--

-3

1396

.0-

-

>100

0 g

22

100

54.0

120

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

< 1

g (h

eroi

n)1,

026

415

4021

.549

.741

429

028

6.9

20.8

108

1114

.815

715

42.7

151

1-<1

0 g

(her

oin)

484

245

5126

.960

.39

281

1710

.725

.077

1614

.166

1442

.76

1

Sub

tota

l2,

251

859

3825

.156

.678

349

722

8.1

22.4

414

1813

.237

517

41.5

281


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Due

to ro

undi

ng, p

erce

ntag

es m

ay n

ot to

tal 1

00%

Tabl

e 9.

Sen

tenc

es Im

pose

d fo

r Dru

g O

ffens

es: P

enns

ylva

nia,

200

9

Type

of D

rug

Sta

te P

rison

SIP

Cou

nty

Jail

CIP

Pro

batio

nO

ther

RS

Dru

g C

ateg

ory

Am

ount

Tota

lN

umbe

rN

um%

Mea

nM

inM

ean

Max

Num

%N

um%

Mea

nM

inM

ean

Max

Num

%Le

ngth

of R

IPN

um%

Leng

th o

fP

roba

tion

Num

%

Oth

er D

rug

Offe

nses

Sta

t Lim

it 3.

5 yr

332

66.

033

.0-

-5

155.

217

.65

154.

821

6460

.0-

-

Sta

t Lim

it 2.

5 yr

597

9115

16.4

38.2

163

147

255.

620

.581

149.

924

441

27.6

183

Sta

t Lim

it 2.

5 yr

(6th

Ed.

)9

--

--

--

--

--

--

-9

100

27.3

--

Sta

t Lim

it 1.

5 yr

1,83

912

47

10.1

25.8

9<1

566

314.

217

.710

26

9.0

955

5217

.383

5

Sta

t Lim

it 6

mon

8,22

012

72

5.8

15.0

12<1

1,33

016

2.5

11.1

217

35.

56,

046

7410

.548

86

Sta

t Lim

it 3

mon

2-

--

--

--

--

--

--

210

06.

0-

-

Sub

tota

l10

,700

344

310

.225

.137

<12,

048

193.

213

.640

54

7.3

7,27

768

12.1

589

6

Oxy

cont

in1-

20 p

ills

(6th

Ed.

)26

068

2620

.446

.96

292

356.

422

.941

1613

.751

2036

.22

<1

21-5

0 pi

lls (6

th E

d.)

5918

3125

.757

.03

517

297.

923

.910

1710

.410

1732

.31

2

51-1

00 p

ills

(6th

Ed.

)73

3244

37.2

82.6

57

2027

9.5

26.3

57

8.3

1115

39.8

--

>100

pill

s (6

th E

d.)

7939

4936

.282

.63

414

1810

.622

.58

1013

.915

1946

.7-

-

Sub

tota

l47

115

733

28.4

64.2

174

143

307.

423

.464

1412

.887

1838

.03

<1

Pre

scrip

tion

Pill

s1-

20 p

ills

102

2011

.029

.5-

-2

208.

042

.01

106.

05

5033

.6-

-

21-5

0 pi

lls9

111

18.0

36.0

111

333

3.5

19.3

111

48.0

111

36.0

222

51-1

00 p

ills

81

1318

.036

.0-

-4

5011

.923

.71

133.

02

2524

.0-

-

>100

pill

s9

111

30.0

60.0

--

444

8.7

23.0

111

2.0

333

20.0

--

Sub

tota

l36

514

17.6

38.2

13

1336

8.4

25.3

411

14.7

1131

28.4

26

Tota

l21

,731

4,20

019

26.4

59.1

259

14,

708

225.

417

.91,

597

711

.29,

686

4515

.51,

281

6

*Due

to ro

undi

ng, p

erce

ntag

es m

ay n

ot to

tal 1

00%


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 10. Sentences Imposed for DUI Offenses Only by County: Pennsylvania, 2009




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Adams 246 4 2 12.8 39.0 - - 15 6 1.5 5.7 215 87 2.1 12 5 6.0 - -

Allegheny 2,236 46 2 11.2 21.8 1 <1 536 24 1.4 2.8 1,602 72 4.0 51 2 5.9 - -

Armstrong 127 5 4 14.0 49.2 - - 116 91 2.2 25.2 1 <1 12.0 5 4 6.0 - -

Beaver 310 7 2 18.9 39.4 - - 290 94 2.2 13.9 3 <1 9.0 10 3 6.0 - -

Bedford 99 10 10 12.7 48.0 - - 85 86 1.4 13.1 - - - 4 4 6.0 - -

Berks 509 33 6 7.7 41.0 - - 448 88 1.4 11.2 9 2 37.0 19 4 6.0 - -

Blair 370 17 5 9.5 22.8 8 2 233 63 1.2 10.5 96 26 3.2 16 4 6.0 - -

Bradford 146 11 8 11.6 34.9 6 4 116 79 1.2 8.1 2 1 4.5 11 8 6.0 - -

Bucks 1,749 32 2 7.6 22.4 - - 1,647 94 1.9 9.9 1 <1 12.0 69 4 5.8 - -

Butler 353 25 7 11.1 38.9 - - 98 28 1.1 6.4 218 62 3.1 12 3 6.0 - -

Cambria 325 5 2 11.0 23.8 - - 166 51 4.8 16.4 149 46 2.5 5 2 6.0 - -

Cameron 1 - - - - - - 1 100 1.0 6.0 - - - - - - - -

Carbon 169 4 2 6.8 21.0 - - 116 69 1.4 15.9 - - - 48 28 5.9 1 <1

Centre 207 10 5 5.9 25.8 2 <1 92 44 2.1 12.4 98 47 2.7 5 2 6.0 - -

Chester 735 65 9 12.4 29.6 1 <1 636 87 1.0 7.1 5 <1 0.8 28 4 6.0 - -

Clarion 58 1 2 15.0 30.0 - - 38 66 1.2 9.7 18 31 5.8 1 2 6.0 - -

Clearfield 14 11 79 11.7 39.3 - - 1 7 0.1 6.0 - - - 2 14 6.0 - -

Clinton 89 4 4 6.8 46.5 - - 82 92 2.2 14.7 - - - 3 3 6.0 - -

Columbia 95 4 4 13.5 33.0 - - 60 63 1.9 9.3 18 19 3.9 13 14 6.0 - -

Crawford 194 9 5 13.3 60.0 - - 124 64 1.1 8.7 51 26 6.6 10 5 6.0 - -

Cumberland 786 21 3 11.3 43.7 10 1 576 73 1.3 11.7 104 13 4.6 75 10 6.0 - -

Dauphin 715 14 2 3.2 13.6 1 <1 172 24 0.8 7.0 453 63 3.3 75 10 5.7 - -

Delaware 1,335 83 6 11.0 24.7 3 <1 960 72 1.4 11.0 261 20 2.4 28 2 5.9 - -

Elk 51 2 4 7.5 15.0 6 12 19 37 0.4 5.7 22 43 4.3 2 4 6.0 - -

Erie 457 52 11 11.4 37.5 1 <1 108 24 2.9 13.6 290 63 2.2 6 1 6.0 - -

Fayette 312 20 6 9.2 22.9 14 4 117 38 0.6 8.1 152 49 3.1 9 3 6.0 - -

Forest 5 - - - - - - 4 80 0.6 6.0 - - - 1 20 6.0 - -

Franklin 345 13 4 11.2 55.8 15 4 301 87 1.8 19.7 2 <1 7.5 14 4 6.0 - -

Fulton 35 4 11 8.8 46.5 1 3 28 80 1.3 19.5 - - - 2 6 6.0 - -

Greene 107 5 5 10.4 31.6 12 11 88 82 1.3 9.4 1 <1 14.0 1 <1 6.0 - -

Huntingdon 50 5 10 15.2 45.6 - - 44 88 2.1 13.3 - - - 1 2 6.0 - -

Indiana 163 11 7 10.9 50.2 3 2 108 66 1.2 11.6 28 17 1.7 13 8 6.0 - -

Jefferson 81 2 2 13.5 42.0 1 1 55 68 1.3 6.2 20 25 2.3 3 4 6.0 - -

Juniata 55 2 4 12.0 42.0 4 7 48 87 2.2 16.9 1 2 12.0 - - - - -

Lackawanna 315 23 7 9.8 36.3 8 3 76 24 2.3 7.3 181 57 2.2 27 9 8.0 - -

Lancaster 905 45 5 10.5 46.1 8 <1 582 64 0.7 7.8 211 23 7.0 59 7 6.0 - -

Lawrence 159 11 7 11.2 22.9 1 <1 21 13 1.3 8.6 124 78 3.6 2 1 6.0 - -

Lebanon 251 24 10 12.0 44.0 - - 169 67 1.0 9.5 51 20 4.1 7 3 6.0 - -

Lehigh 550 6 1 4.8 25.0 - - 229 42 3.1 16.6 300 55 4.5 15 3 5.9 - -

Luzerne 615 27 4 10.2 23.7 1 <1 271 44 1.1 7.7 298 48 5.2 18 3 5.8 - -

Lycoming 368 24 7 11.1 57.8 3 <1 118 32 0.3 6.6 219 60 2.1 4 1 6.0 - -

McKean 139 9 6 9.0 48.7 - - 85 61 1.2 25.8 37 27 2.4 8 6 6.0 - -

Mercer 265 8 3 8.6 31.5 - - 190 72 2.5 12.4 50 19 0.3 17 6 6.0 - -

Mifflin 87 4 5 13.3 60.0 1 1 55 63 1.3 21.7 24 28 4.9 3 3 6.0 - -

Monroe 341 8 2 11.6 27.0 - - 239 70 3.0 10.1 79 23 2.6 15 4 6.0 - -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Montgomery 1,418 25 2 10.3 48.5 7 <1 1,164 82 1.8 17.9 89 6 3.4 132 9 6.0 1 <1

Montour 35 2 6 13.0 36.0 - - 30 86 2.0 11.3 - - - 3 9 6.0 - -

Northampton 518 32 6 8.9 45.6 2 <1 330 64 1.6 17.1 128 25 3.4 25 5 6.0 1 <1

Northumberland 174 5 3 8.4 37.2 - - 73 42 0.8 8.5 90 52 3.4 6 3 6.0 - -

Perry 60 2 3 12.0 48.0 - - 56 93 2.4 15.9 1 2 12.0 1 2 6.0 - -

Philadelphia 81 15 19 8.3 26.1 - - 57 70 1.0 4.8 1 1 0.1 7 9 5.1 1 1

Pike 110 10 9 6.7 43.8 - - 97 88 1.3 18.8 - - - 3 3 6.0 - -

Potter 30 - - - - - - 27 90 1.9 22.0 1 3 1.0 1 3 6.0 1 3

Schuylkill 292 30 10 9.7 52.8 3 1 166 57 1.2 12.9 81 28 2.6 12 4 6.0 - -

Snyder 95 14 15 9.6 35.1 - - 70 74 1.2 7.2 1 1 3.0 10 11 6.0 - -

Somerset 126 9 7 8.3 44.0 1 <1 57 45 0.9 15.4 29 23 4.1 30 24 6.0 - -

Sullivan 11 - - - - - - 8 73 0.9 7.5 3 27 3.0 - - - - -

Susquehanna 97 1 1 12.0 36.0 - - 43 44 1.8 12.7 5 5 1.3 48 49 6.0 - -

Tioga 61 5 8 22.0 60.0 1 2 12 20 1.1 14.5 42 69 2.7 1 2 6.0 - -

Union 89 5 6 11.4 60.0 4 4 52 58 0.6 8.6 23 26 5.6 5 6 6.0 - -

Venango 170 11 6 15.5 56.7 - - 138 81 1.6 21.1 2 1 0.1 19 11 6.0 - -

Warren 104 16 15 10.0 36.3 - - 51 49 0.7 10.4 34 33 6.7 3 3 6.0 - -

Washington 200 3 2 10.3 22.0 2 1 169 85 1.7 8.9 19 10 6.5 7 4 6.0 - -

Wayne 79 8 10 10.6 53.3 - - 57 72 1.5 19.5 7 9 2.4 7 9 6.0 - -

Westmoreland 671 8 1 16.5 55.5 9 1 198 30 1.5 15.2 441 66 5.8 15 2 6.0 - -

Wyoming 49 7 14 9.0 24.9 - - 11 22 4.1 13.6 31 63 4.7 - - - - -

York 1,436 43 3 13.1 56.0 12 <1 910 63 1.2 14.7 387 27 5.0 84 6 6.0 - -

Total 22,430 977 4 10.7 37.4 152 <1 13,339 59 1.6 12.0 6,809 30 3.9 1,148 5 6.0 5 <1

Percent of Sentences to County Intermediate Punishment Imposed for DUI Offenses:

Pennsylvania, 2009


None

Less than 10%

10% to 24%

25% to 49%

50% to 74%

75% or more



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 11. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (DUI Offenses Only) : Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 11. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type (DUI Offenses Only) : Pennsylvania, 2009


Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


DUI-1st Off: Tier 1 1,420 7 <1 1.1 5.4 - - 188 13 0.5 5.1 75 5 1.2 1,145 81 5.9 5 <1

DUI-1st Off: Tier 2 2,899 30 1 0.4 5.8 1 <1 2,244 77 0.2 5.6 624 22 0.8 - - - - -

DUI-1st Off: Tier 3 6,382 63 <1 0.8 6.6 5 <1 4,966 78 0.3 5.6 1,348 21 0.9 - - - - -

DUI-2nd Off: Tier 1 800 2 <1 2.6 6.0 - - 573 72 0.3 5.8 225 28 1.1 - - - - -

DUI-2nd Off: Tier 2 2,265 16 <1 1.0 5.6 2 <1 1,253 55 1.0 5.3 994 44 1.7 - - - - -

DUI-2nd Off: Tier 3 5,960 217 4 9.1 39.4 25 <1 2,909 49 3.3 25.7 2,809 47 5.1 - - - - -

DUI-3rd Off: Tier 1 283 15 5 6.1 22.4 4 1 192 68 1.5 18.8 71 25 4.2 1 <1 24.0 - -

DUI-3rd Off: Tier 2 515 43 8 9.7 38.3 4 <1 274 53 3.9 30.0 193 37 6.3 1 <1 24.0 - -

DUI-3rd Off: Tier 3 1,680 542 32 13.5 43.4 104 6 577 34 11.2 33.5 456 27 14.5 1 <1 24.0 - -

DUI-4th/Subsq Off: Tier 2 82 39 48 13.3 42.7 7 9 36 44 12.7 33.7 - - - - - - - -

DUI: (97 GLs/M-1) 14 1 7 12.0 24.0 - - 11 79 2.0 23.1 2 14 7.5 - - - - -

DUI: (97 GLs/M-2) 130 2 2 3.2 14.5 - - 116 89 0.6 10.5 12 9 1.1 - - - - -

Total 22,430 977 4 10.7 37.4 152 <1 13,339 59 1.6 12.0 6,809 30 3.9 1,148 5 6.0 5 <1

State Prison County Jail Probation

SIP CIP

Tier 1

80%

100%

Tier 1

60%

80%

100%

Tier 1

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tier 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tier 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense

Tier 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Tier 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense 4th+ Offense

Tier 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Tier 3



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Elk

Erie

Tioga

York

Potte

r

Centr

e

Berks

Brad

ford

Pike

Butle

r

Lyco

ming

Warre

n

Clint

on

Bedfo

rd

McKe

an

Clea

rfield

Craw

ford

Wayne

Luze

rne

Indian

a

Blair

Some

rset

Faye

tte

Perry

Merce

r

Lanc

aster

Bucks

Chester

Fran

klin

Clarion

Cambria

Monr

oe

Schu

ylkill

Gree

ne

Venan

go

HuntingdonAl

leghe

ny

Adam

s

Wash

ington

Westm

orela

nd

Jefferson

Fore

st

Fulton

Mifflin

Dauphin

Beaver

Arms

trong

Susq

ueha

nna

Sulliv

an

Union

Junia

ta

Carb

onColumbia

Lehig

h

Snyd

er

Cumb

erlan

d

Camero

n

Wyom

ing

Leba

non

Montgo

mery

Lawr

ence

Lack

awan

na

North

umbe

rland

North

ampt

on

Delaw

are

Monto

ur

Phila

delph

ia

Urba

n and

Rur

al St

atus o

f Pen

nsylv

ania

Coun

ties,

2009

Statu

sUr

ban

Rural

Sour

ce: C

enter

For

Rura

l Pen

nsylv

ania.

Bas

ed on

U.S

. Bure

au of

the C

ensu

s 200

0 data


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 12. Place of Confinement by County (2 to Less Than 5 YearMaximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2009



State Prison SIP County Jail

CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Adams 69 62 90 13.4 34.9 7 10 - - - -

Allegheny 417 302 72 17.5 35.6 7 2 108 26 12.8 26.5

Armstrong 27 24 89 13.3 31.3 - - 3 11 6.2 28.0

Beaver 80 57 71 16.5 33.5 - - 23 29 10.8 25.0

Bedford 41 39 95 10.1 32.4 - - 2 5 12.0 30.0

Berks 290 278 96 15.9 37.2 3 1 9 3 10.7 35.8

Blair 232 171 74 16.6 33.6 40 17 21 9 7.2 35.7

Bradford 61 40 66 9.1 29.9 12 20 9 15 8.0 26.7

Bucks 342 157 46 15.5 35.4 7 2 178 52 12.5 28.7

Butler 75 61 81 13.7 31.8 - - 14 19 10.0 25.3

Cambria 62 52 84 14.3 31.3 - - 10 16 13.4 34.6

Cameron 8 7 88 16.7 34.3 - - 1 13 3.2 24.0

Carbon 40 17 43 13.2 31.2 4 10 19 48 10.8 38.3

Centre 67 57 85 15.1 32.7 3 4 7 10 12.4 29.1

Chester 173 157 91 15.2 32.5 8 5 8 5 15.9 38.3

Clarion 25 25 100 15.9 33.4 - - - - - -

Clearfield 48 43 90 8.8 31.3 - - 5 10 2.0 26.4

Clinton 21 14 67 10.0 30.4 - - 7 33 12.0 39.0

Columbia 55 47 85 10.9 30.3 - - 8 15 10.4 25.5

Crawford 35 27 77 13.7 36.0 - - 8 23 8.6 31.5

Cumberland 93 57 61 11.5 30.8 14 15 22 24 7.5 27.7

Dauphin 367 336 92 16.4 35.6 11 3 20 5 12.9 32.0

Delaware 423 380 90 16.9 35.1 4 <1 39 9 11.3 27.2

Elk 21 14 67 10.8 30.1 6 29 1 5 6.0 36.0

Erie 211 196 93 11.5 30.0 1 <1 14 7 10.3 46.3

Fayette 244 221 91 12.0 27.9 23 9 - - - -

Forest 3 3 100 12.7 28.0 - - - - - -

Franklin 72 41 57 10.2 30.9 25 35 6 8 6.5 30.2

Fulton 13 11 85 6.1 29.5 2 15 - - - -

Greene 39 23 59 14.9 32.6 14 36 2 5 5.5 30.0

Huntingdon 15 13 87 11.8 27.7 - - 2 13 7.5 36.0

Indiana 25 15 60 15.3 36.0 4 16 6 24 2.9 24.0

Jefferson 23 17 74 10.5 26.1 3 13 3 13 5.0 24.0

Juniata 29 9 31 15.8 35.3 5 17 15 52 5.4 33.3

Lackawanna 240 197 82 13.0 33.2 36 15 7 3 10.3 27.4

Lancaster 268 213 79 16.4 35.2 48 18 7 3 14.1 32.2

Lawrence 80 50 63 13.0 28.3 20 25 10 13 9.1 25.2

Lebanon 87 83 95 13.2 34.0 - - 4 5 6.5 39.0

Lehigh 277 191 69 14.2 36.4 - - 86 31 7.7 30.8

Luzerne 238 190 80 16.8 34.2 1 <1 47 20 14.5 30.3

Lycoming 122 105 86 14.2 33.0 13 11 4 3 7.5 30.0

McKean 27 24 89 15.7 38.5 - - 3 11 5.1 32.0

Mercer 110 61 55 11.9 32.5 2 2 47 43 6.5 25.5

Mifflin 53 34 64 17.8 36.7 18 34 1 2 24.0 48.0

Monroe 132 83 63 14.4 33.8 5 4 44 33 12.0 27.4


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Montgomery 293 191 65 16.1 35.7 25 9 77 26 14.9 34.7

Montour 23 19 83 15.1 37.9 - - 4 17 11.1 39.0

Northampton 142 83 58 14.2 34.2 2 1 57 40 8.9 27.0

Northumberland 72 69 96 13.7 32.1 1 1 2 3 18.0 36.0

Perry 38 28 74 13.5 31.3 - - 10 26 7.5 31.2

Philadelphia 1,002 764 76 18.1 37.9 82 8 156 16 14.8 31.4

Pike 40 25 63 11.3 31.4 1 3 14 35 8.1 30.5

Potter 10 8 80 12.5 34.5 2 20 - - - -

Schuylkill 102 83 81 14.3 29.7 18 18 1 <1 0.3 24.0

Snyder 23 22 96 9.0 26.2 - - 1 4 12.0 24.0

Somerset 59 35 59 9.3 29.8 17 29 7 12 1.0 24.0

Sullivan 3 3 100 5.1 28.0 - - - - - -

Susquehanna 7 6 86 12.5 40.0 - - 1 14 11.5 24.0

Tioga 18 14 78 16.0 36.8 2 11 2 11 3.0 57.0

Union 21 17 81 7.2 30.4 4 19 - - - -

Venango 40 29 73 11.6 30.8 4 10 7 18 5.4 24.0

Warren 42 39 93 11.9 28.0 1 2 2 5 6.5 36.0

Washington 59 49 83 15.3 32.2 5 8 5 8 14.4 31.2

Wayne 40 37 93 11.2 31.8 3 8 - - - -

Westmoreland 148 101 68 16.0 33.4 39 26 8 5 16.9 36.0

Wyoming 22 19 86 8.8 28.4 - - 3 14 15.0 40.0

York 276 235 85 16.6 35.8 23 8 18 7 7.4 27.8

Total 7,860 6,080 77 15.1 34.2 575 7 1,205 15 11.3 30.0

Percent of State Sentences(Maximum Sentence of 2 Years to Less than 5 Years)

Sentenced to County Jail: Pennsylvania, 2009

Percent State Sentences Sentences

None Less than 25% 25% to 49% 50% or more



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 13. Place of Confinement by Offense Type (2 to Less Than 5 YearMaximum Sentence): Pennsylvania, 2009




Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Arson-F1 (persons) 20 16 80 22.4 45.3 - - 4 20 18.0 39.0

Arson-F2 (property) 13 11 85 15.0 32.2 - - 2 15 7.5 36.0

Assault-Agg By Veh whileDUI

22 15 68 16.6 35.9 - - 7 32 16.0 32.0

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 77 59 77 20.5 41.5 1 1 17 22 17.1 40.7

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 185 152 82 17.4 36.9 - - 33 18 14.2 32.1

Assault-Reck Endanger 46 39 85 10.0 24.0 1 2 6 13 7.2 24.0

Assault-Simple 198 166 84 10.1 24.3 - - 32 16 8.6 24.0

Assault-Terr Threat 50 48 96 11.2 28.7 - - 2 4 11.7 24.0

Bad Checks 28 24 86 9.3 26.8 - - 4 14 12.0 27.0

Burg-F1/House-No Person 271 237 87 15.7 34.9 13 5 21 8 13.3 30.3

Burg-F1/House-Person 78 64 82 18.0 39.2 3 4 11 14 19.6 39.2

Burg-F1/No House-Person 11 6 55 17.5 40.0 2 18 3 27 11.0 24.0

Burglary-F2 209 181 87 15.3 34.0 13 6 15 7 12.3 32.4

Carjacking 3 3 100 25.0 50.0 - - - - - -

Catastrophe 2 1 50 9.0 24.0 - - 1 50 12.0 24.0

Corrupting Minor 31 27 87 12.5 30.2 - - 4 13 10.5 30.0

Crim Mischief-F3 9 9 100 11.6 32.4 - - - - - -

Crim Trespass-F2 57 44 77 12.3 32.0 4 7 9 16 15.1 32.7

Crim Trespass-F3 76 59 78 11.5 30.0 8 11 9 12 10.0 32.9

DUI-M 8 - - - - 8 100 - - - -

DUI-M1 1,020 409 40 12.2 28.7 140 14 471 46 9.9 28.2

DUI-M2 75 13 17 6.5 24.0 4 5 58 77 1.3 24.0

Drug-Felony 2,401 1,952 81 18.0 38.3 241 10 208 9 15.5 33.3

Drug-Misd 99 79 80 11.6 28.8 18 18 2 2 8.2 33.0

Escape-Felony 173 160 92 14.0 32.5 1 <1 12 7 11.2 28.1

Escape-Misd 25 21 84 10.7 25.2 - - 4 16 10.5 24.0

Forgery-F2 33 26 79 12.2 30.7 7 21 - - - -

Forgery-F3 55 48 87 12.3 30.6 6 11 1 2 18.0 36.0

Forgery-M1 9 7 78 8.9 29.1 1 11 1 11 12.0 24.0

Homicide-By Veh (DUI) 2 1 50 12.0 24.0 - - 1 50 6.0 24.0

Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) 4 2 50 18.0 36.0 - - 2 50 11.5 36.0

Homicide-Inchoate-withS.B.I.

1 1 100 24.0 59.0 - - - - - -

Homicide-Invol Mansl 12 8 67 15.9 31.8 - - 4 33 16.5 47.7

Homicide-Vol Mansl 1 1 100 24.0 48.0 - - - - - -

Identity Theft 26 22 85 12.7 30.8 2 8 2 8 12.0 30.0

Incest 3 2 67 21.0 42.0 - - 1 33 12.0 24.1

Indecent Assault 50 48 96 11.3 28.3 - - 2 4 6.2 24.0

Indecent Assault-Agg 13 11 85 22.4 45.1 - - 2 15 21.0 42.0

Invol Dev Sex Inter 3 2 67 16.5 36.0 - - 1 33 21.5 44.0

Kidnapping 3 3 100 20.0 40.0 - - - - - -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num % Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Other Felony 392 339 86 14.4 33.6 16 4 37 9 13.6 31.3

Other Misdemeanor 109 90 83 8.0 24.0 8 7 11 10 4.7 24.0

Other Misdemeanor 1 117 101 86 12.1 30.3 5 4 11 9 7.0 29.9

Rape 1 1 100 24.0 48.0 - - - - - -

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 107 89 83 19.5 40.6 1 <1 17 16 18.1 37.2

Robbery-F2 111 98 88 18.5 39.7 1 <1 12 11 16.1 33.4

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 61 51 84 14.4 34.9 - - 10 16 13.8 31.2

Sex. Offender Registry-Fel. 75 72 96 20.1 41.8 - - 3 4 14.0 28.0

Sex. OffenderRegistry-Misd.

1 1 100 12.0 24.0 - - - - - -

Sexual Assault 11 8 73 18.3 39.5 - - 3 27 12.0 24.0

Sexual Assault-Statutory 39 36 92 14.9 33.2 - - 3 8 12.3 26.0

Stalking/Harassment 16 15 94 14.6 33.7 - - 1 6 12.0 24.0

Theft-Felony 448 388 87 13.5 31.7 23 5 37 8 11.5 32.6

Theft-Misd 383 329 86 10.0 27.9 21 5 33 9 7.9 27.6

Theft-Retail Fel 250 210 84 11.9 30.0 12 5 28 11 7.9 30.8

Theft-Retail Misd 70 52 74 7.0 26.8 10 14 8 11 3.2 26.3

VUFA-Felony 253 212 84 19.1 39.2 5 2 36 14 14.4 32.3

VUFA-Misd 13 10 77 11.6 33.0 - - 3 23 11.4 30.0

WMD-Use or Threat 1 1 100 12.0 24.0 - - - - - -

Total 7,860 6,080 77 15.1 34.2 575 7 1,205 15 11.3 30.0



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 14. Percent Incarcerated by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 14. Percent Incarcerated by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2009

Offense GravityScore

Prior Record Score

Total0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOC

14 Number 178 31 37 18 27 37 13 9 350

% Incar 97 100 100 100 93 100 100 100 98

Mean Min 134.5 145.9 168.5 165.3 195.1 179.1 162.6 189.3 153

13 Number 50 4 6 7 4 10 2 - 83

% Incar 96 100 100 100 100 100 50 - 96

Mean Min 63.9 82.5 66.0 102.3 72.0 89.2 120.0 - 73

12 Number 170 40 37 10 26 35 16 3 337

% Incar 95 95 95 100 88 91 94 67 94

Mean Min 67.1 67.0 56.6 79.2 72.9 83.5 116.0 180.0 71

11 Number 331 49 71 45 50 79 18 8 651

% Incar 87 92 90 87 92 94 83 88 89

Mean Min 41.2 43.1 51.1 57.2 55.4 65.4 70.4 136.3 50

10 Number 788 172 255 164 207 314 95 32 2,027

% Incar 91 91 86 93 92 95 97 94 91

Mean Min 35.5 41.7 42.3 42.3 50.3 55.4 68.6 94.6 45

9 Number 704 193 171 114 84 135 43 8 1,452

% Incar 62 79 82 85 85 87 95 100 73

Mean Min 16.1 22.4 23.4 27.4 30.0 41.1 60.3 61.0 25

8 Number 963 197 202 126 157 265 46 - 1,956

% Incar 71 86 82 81 86 84 89 - 78

Mean Min 17.8 22.7 24.8 25.2 29.3 35.4 42.0 - 24

7 Number 2,047 443 512 289 334 539 213 - 4,377

% Incar 68 81 82 83 85 87 93 - 77

Mean Min 12.2 14.9 20.1 18.7 24.6 26.9 38.0 - 19

6 Number 2,538 554 793 462 456 915 168 - 5,886

% Incar 55 66 71 74 79 83 85 - 67

Mean Min 11.1 11.4 13.2 13.8 17.7 21.1 25.3 - 15

5 Number 9,053 2,380 1,703 1,130 812 1,824 479 - 17,381

% Incar 44 59 65 69 74 77 79 - 56

Mean Min 5.0 6.0 7.4 8.4 10.0 12.7 21.0 - 8

4 Number 1,722 381 286 190 145 301 102 - 3,127

% Incar 28 41 47 65 66 74 79 - 41

Mean Min 3.6 4.7 5.9 5.9 8.0 9.9 17.9 - 6

3 Number 12,277 3,134 2,649 1,860 1,466 3,149 817 - 25,352

% Incar 23 35 42 44 58 69 75 - 37

Mean Min 2.9 4.0 4.8 5.3 5.7 7.6 10.6 - 5

2 Number 4,836 1,238 985 688 495 960 298 - 9,500

% Incar 15 27 33 38 42 62 72 - 28

Mean Min 1.8 1.9 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.9 6.3 - 3

1 Number 15,841 3,243 2,280 1,418 1,086 1,750 511 - 26,129

% Incar 43 43 44 46 44 49 61 - 44

Mean Min 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.4 - 1

Total Number 51,498 12,059 9,987 6,521 5,349 10,313 2,821 60 98,608

% Incar 39 47 53 56 63 70 77 93 48

Mean Min 8.0 8.3 11.3 11.1 15.2 15.5 20.7 113.3 11



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 15. Incarceration Sentences with Deadly Weapon Enhancements: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 15. Incarceration Sentences with Deadly Weapon Enhancements: Pennsylvania, 2009

State Prison County Jail Type (%)

Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Possessed Used

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 104 97 93 65.6 142 7 7 11.7 23.4 6 94

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 11 8 73 24.4 51.8 3 27 7.9 19.3 18 82

Assault-Reck Endanger 32 3 9 10.3 24.0 29 91 6.3 21.3 13 88

Assault-Simple 86 13 15 10.2 23.1 73 85 5.4 20.1 16 84

Assault-Terr Threat 42 5 12 10.4 28.8 37 88 6.3 20.7 17 83

Burg-F1/House-No Person 1 1 100 12.0 24.0 - - - - - 100

Burg-F1/House-Person 11 9 82 44.9 90.2 2 18 10.2 23.2 27 73

Carjacking 6 6 100 67.0 144 - - - - 17 83

Crim Trespass-F2 5 1 20 18.0 36.0 4 80 8.7 23.0 - 100

Crim Trespass-F3 1 - - - - 1 100 6.5 23.0 - 100

Drug-Felony 50 38 76 35.3 72.6 12 24 9.5 25.2 98 2

Drug-Misd 2 - - - - 2 100 1.6 12.0 100 -

Homicide-By Veh while DUI 1 1 100 60.0 120 - - - - - 100

Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. 14 14 100 106 229 - - - - 14 86

Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. 19 19 100 175 359 - - - - - 100

Homicide-Invol Mansl 8 6 75 20.0 51.0 2 25 8.7 23.2 - 100

Homicide-Murder 3 66 65 98 180 384 1 2 240 480 2 98

Homicide-Vol Mansl 6 6 100 62.0 139 - - - - - 100

Indecent Assault 2 1 50 6.0 18.0 1 50 9.0 18.0 - 100

Invol Dev Sex Inter 1 1 100 120 240 - - - - - 100

Kidnapping 8 8 100 70.1 158 - - - - 25 75

Other Misdemeanor 10 1 10 6.0 12.0 9 90 3.4 12.2 70 30

Other Misdemeanor 1 4 - - - - 4 100 6.8 18.8 25 75

Rape 6 6 100 97.0 202 - - - - 17 83

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 266 244 92 63.1 143 22 8 18.5 39.8 33 67

Robbery-F2 38 25 66 26.7 67.9 13 34 10.4 24.5 42 58

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 16 6 38 16.5 59.7 10 63 9.2 23.3 56 44

Stalking/Harassment 1 - - - - 1 100 3.0 23.0 100 -

Theft-Misd 1 - - - - 1 100 4.7 18.0 100 -

Theft-Retail Fel 3 1 33 12.0 24.0 2 67 8.7 23.0 33 67

Theft-Retail Misd 1 - - - - 1 100 3.7 12.0 - 100

Total 822 585 71 74.3 163 237 29 8.8 24.5 26 74


*PCS does not assign an OGS nor calculate conformity to the guidelines for offenses with a penalty

of life or death, such as Murder 1, Murder 2, or Assault by a Life Prisoner.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

**Also excluded: Boating under the influence and Driving with Suspended License/BAC>0.02*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%*

Table 16. Mandatory Sentences by Offense Type (Excluding Driving Under the Influence**): Pennsylvania, 2009



State Prison County Jail

Mandatory Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Accid/Death-Injury Other Felony 29 8 28 16.3 43.5 21 72 8.0 23.4

Subtotal 29 8 28 16.3 43.5 21 72 8.0 23.4

Assault by Life Prisoner Assault-By Life Prisoner 1 1 100 - - - - - -

Subtotal 1 1 100 - - - - - -

Contraband Other Felony 8 5 63 24.0 50.4 3 38 48.0 96.0

Subtotal 8 5 63 24.0 50.4 3 38 48.0 96.0

Crimes against Elderly Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 4 4 100 64.5 180 - - - -

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 1 1 100 24.0 48.0 - - - -

Theft-Felony 11 11 100 12.0 25.1 - - - -

Theft-Misd 5 - - - - 5 100 12.0 24.0

Subtotal 21 16 76 25.9 65.3 5 24 12.0 24.0

Crimes against Infants Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 9 9 100 81.3 188 - - - -

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 2 2 100 36.0 72.0 - - - -

Indecent Assault-Agg 22 22 100 60.3 129 - - - -

Invol Dev Sex Inter 52 52 100 108 225 - - - -

Rape 31 31 100 109 241 - - - -

Subtotal 116 116 100 95.9 205 - - - -

Drug Deliv w/ Firearm Drug-Felony 25 25 100 61.0 117 - - - -

Subtotal 25 25 100 61.0 117 - - - -

Drug Trafficking Cocaine, Meth., PCP 458 428 93 42.2 90.7 30 7 17.2 37.0

Marijuana 38 30 79 29.3 55.2 8 21 13.5 28.5

Narcotics 103 97 94 39.7 86.5 6 6 32.0 64.0

Other Drug Offenses 2 1 50 60.0 120 1 50 12.0 24.0

Oxycontin 15 9 60 40.0 83.3 6 40 28.0 56.3

Subtotal 616 565 92 41.1 88.0 51 8 19.5 40.9

Drugs to Minors Drug-Felony 14 12 86 35.0 87.0 2 14 15.0 30.0

Drug-Misd 1 - - - - 1 100 12.0 12.0

Subtotal 15 12 80 35.0 87.0 3 20 14.0 24.0

Drugs/School Zone Drug-Felony 333 327 98 27.5 59.8 6 2 24.0 48.0

Subtotal 333 327 98 27.5 59.8 6 2 24.0 48.0

Firearms Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 25 25 100 75.4 164 - - - -

Burg-F1/House-Person 3 3 100 60.0 120 - - - -

Carjacking 2 2 100 60.0 120 - - - -

Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. 6 6 100 110 224 - - - -

Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. 11 11 100 173 352 - - - -

Homicide-Murder 3 35 35 100 173 367 - - - -

Indecent Assault-Agg 1 1 100 60.0 120 - - - -

Kidnapping 2 2 100 60.0 150 - - - -

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 133 132 100 67.5 147 1 <1 60.0 120

Subtotal 218 217 100 91.7 196 1 <1 60.0 120


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



State Prison County Jail

Mandatory Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax

Homicide-Veh while DUI Homicide-By Veh while DUI 44 44 100 42.1 90.8 - - - -

Subtotal 44 44 100 42.1 90.8 - - - -

Ignition Interlock Other Misdemeanor 5 1 20 3.0 12.0 4 80 3.0 6.0

Subtotal 5 1 20 3.0 12.0 4 80 3.0 6.0

Manuf. Amphetamines Drug-Felony 3 3 100 24.0 52.0 - - - -

Subtotal 3 3 100 24.0 52.0 - - - -

Murder, 1st-2nd Homicide-Murder 1 106 106 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-Murder 2 21 21 100 - - - - - -

Subtotal 127 127 100 - - - - - -

Prohibited Bullets None - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal - - - - - - - - -

Public Transportation Robbery-F1 (SBI) 1 1 100 60.0 120 - - - -

Subtotal 1 1 100 60.0 120 - - - -

Repeat Offender Arson-F1 (persons) 1 1 100 120 240 - - - -

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 6 6 100 180 360 - - - -

Burg-F1/House-Person 2 2 100 120 240 - - - -



Homicide-Murder 3 1 1 100 200 400 - - - -

Indecent Assault-Agg 2 2 100 210 420 - - - -

Rape 2 2 100 300 600 - - - -

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 12 12 100 195 390 - - - -

Subtotal 30 30 100 197 397 - - - -

Sex Offenses Indecent Assault 1 1 100 300 600 - - - -

Other Felony 1 1 100 300 600 - - - -

Subtotal 2 2 100 300 600 - - - -

Sex. Offender Registry Sex. Offender Registry-Fel. 37 37 100 34.0 71.7 - - - -

Subtotal 37 37 100 34.0 71.7 - - - -

Total 1,631 1,537 94 53.7 115 94 6 17.3 37.1


Also excluded: Boating Under the Influence and Driving With Suspended License/BAC>0.02


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Based on 101,458 sentences.*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%

Table 17. Conformity to the Guidelines by County: Pennsylvania, 2009



County TotalNumber ofSentences

Conformity to the Guidelines (%)

Within:Standard

Within:Aggravated

Within:Mitigated

Outside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Adams 877 75 13 2 8 2 -

Allegheny 9,973 61 8 15 4 12 <1

Armstrong 430 89 2 5 <1 2 -

Beaver 1,350 83 1 10 <1 4 <1

Bedford 352 87 8 2 2 2 -

Berks 3,340 80 3 6 3 4 3

Blair 1,839 72 3 10 3 8 3

Bradford 425 87 8 2 1 1 <1

Bucks 5,289 82 5 8 2 4 -

Butler 1,420 90 6 2 <1 <1 <1

Cambria 1,517 83 5 6 <1 5 <1

Cameron 35 80 6 3 - 11 -

Carbon 536 94 2 2 <1 2 -

Centre 950 65 11 7 3 5 8

Chester 2,237 77 10 5 4 4 <1

Clarion 342 85 6 1 3 <1 5

Clearfield 308 79 2 10 3 6 -

Clinton 349 87 10 2 <1 <1 -

Columbia 413 89 6 2 2 <1 -

Crawford 644 80 7 2 1 <1 9

Cumberland 2,024 84 5 5 1 4 -

Dauphin 4,035 76 8 8 2 5 -

Delaware 6,175 70 9 11 2 9 <1

Elk 279 88 5 4 1 1 -

Erie 1,783 78 14 4 1 2 <1

Fayette 1,256 76 8 6 6 4 -

Forest 28 82 7 11 - - -

Franklin 1,100 85 7 6 <1 2 <1

Fulton 165 93 1 3 - 2 -

Greene 354 93 4 2 <1 <1 <1

Huntingdon 224 71 9 4 10 5 -

Indiana 506 91 7 <1 <1 - 1

Jefferson 380 77 12 3 3 3 2

Juniata 187 83 5 3 3 5 <1

Lackawanna 1,584 71 18 3 2 2 4

Lancaster 3,124 80 9 2 8 <1 <1

Lawrence 689 79 8 6 2 4 <1

Lebanon 1,444 90 4 1 <1 <1 3

Lehigh 2,762 78 8 6 3 4 <1

Luzerne 2,208 79 10 3 6 1 <1

Lycoming 1,115 85 4 4 <1 3 3

McKean 520 79 8 6 <1 6 -

Mercer 854 80 7 4 2 1 6

Mifflin 530 84 8 4 2 2 <1

Monroe 960 71 24 2 3 <1 <1


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



County TotalNumber ofSentences


Within:Standard

Within:Aggravated

Within:Mitigated

Outside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Montgomery 6,171 81 6 8 2 3 <1

Montour 116 89 5 <1 3 2 -

Northampton 2,212 88 6 2 1 <1 3

Northumberland 765 81 6 6 5 2 <1

Perry 441 85 5 6 <1 3 -

Philadelphia 7,848 52 6 21 8 13 <1

Pike 344 92 6 1 <1 <1 -

Potter 127 87 6 6 - <1 -

Schuylkill 1,169 94 2 2 1 <1 <1

Snyder 324 94 2 1 2 <1 -

Somerset 454 89 2 3 - <1 5

Sullivan 50 78 18 - - 4 -

Susquehanna 293 87 4 3 <1 4 -

Tioga 187 84 5 4 5 - 2

Union 274 92 - 1 - <1 6

Venango 590 89 2 5 2 1 <1

Warren 347 82 12 1 1 <1 2

Washington 941 68 14 6 7 4 1

Wayne 369 85 12 1 <1 1 <1

Westmoreland 3,015 75 5 8 3 8 <1

Wyoming 242 71 10 1 2 2 14

York 5,417 77 8 6 4 5 <1

Total 98,608 76 7 8 3 5 <1

Percent of Sentences Within Standard Range of the Guidelines: Pennsylvania, 2009

Percent within Standard Range

50% to 59%

60% to 69%

70% to 79%

80% to 89%

90% to 97%


*Based on 98,608 sentences

*Sentences of death or life are not subject to the sentencing guidelines, and, therefore, are not included


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Based on 98,737 Sentences.*Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100%

Table 18. Conformity to the Guidelines by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2009



Offense Type TotalNumber ofSentences


Within:Standard

Within:Aggravated

Within:Mitigated

Outside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Arson-F1 (persons) 77 47 1 22 16 14 -

Arson-F2 (property) 61 54 11 33 - 2 -

Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI 90 62 8 20 4 2 3

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 577 32 8 20 9 32 -

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 893 51 4 32 2 10 -

Assault-Reck Endanger 1,075 80 7 4 4 5 -

Assault-Simple 5,107 83 7 4 3 4 -

Assault-Terr Threat 1,086 78 9 4 5 5 -

BUI: 3 100 - - - - -

Bad Checks 1,128 90 5 2 <1 2 -

Burg-F1/House-No Person 1,126 56 4 22 9 9 -

Burg-F1/House-Person 354 37 3 35 8 17 <1

Burg-F1/No House-Person 53 57 8 17 11 8 -

Burglary-F2 1,111 74 5 8 7 6 -

Carjacking 39 41 8 18 10 23 -

Catastrophe 29 69 10 7 10 3 -

Corrupting Minor 611 87 3 5 2 4 -

Crim Mischief-F3 100 75 4 9 - 12 -

Crim Trespass-F2 620 75 7 6 5 7 -

Crim Trespass-F3 707 75 9 7 5 4 -

DUI-M 13,766 77 19 <1 1 - 2

DUI-M1 8,251 82 1 4 3 5 5

DUI-M2 413 75 12 4 5 1 2

Drug-Felony 10,528 56 6 18 9 11 <1

Drug-Misd 11,203 87 4 4 1 4 <1

Escape-Felony 425 58 2 20 1 19 -

Escape-Misd 253 74 6 9 4 7 -

Forgery-F2 251 86 2 6 2 4 -

Forgery-F3 678 82 7 4 5 2 -

Forgery-M1 239 87 4 5 3 2 -

Homicide-By Veh (DUI) 8 63 13 13 - - 13

Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) 21 71 14 14 - - -

Homicide-By Veh while DUI 44 77 14 2 7 - -

Homicide-Inchoate-No S.B.I. 32 53 9 3 25 9 -

Homicide-Inchoate-with S.B.I. 65 66 - 6 - 28 -

Homicide-Invol Mansl 63 52 10 27 6 2 3

Homicide-Murder 3 180 84 - 4 - 11 -

Homicide-Vol Mansl 13 38 8 - 15 38 -

Identity Theft 336 78 4 10 2 7 -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



Offense Type TotalNumber ofSentences


Within:Standard

Within:Aggravated

Within:Mitigated

Outside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Incest 17 65 12 12 6 6 -

Indecent Assault 453 79 8 5 5 4 -

Indecent Assault-Agg 101 54 9 18 7 12 -

Invol Dev Sex Inter 167 54 8 10 10 18 -

Kidnapping 24 33 17 25 8 17 -

Other Felony 2,692 67 3 18 3 9 <1

Other Misdemeanor 8,310 87 8 3 2 <1 <1

Other Misdemeanor 1 2,820 82 3 7 2 5 -

Rape 150 59 7 7 10 17 -

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 1,093 42 9 16 16 17 -

Robbery-F2 470 56 8 19 6 11 -

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 389 77 5 10 3 6 -

Sex. Offender Registry-Fel. 308 43 <1 16 7 33 -

Sex. Offender Registry-Misd. 7 57 14 14 14 - -

Sexual Assault 72 51 4 18 - 26 -

Sexual Assault-Statutory 238 66 5 23 3 2 -

Stalking/Harassment 718 82 9 4 3 1 -

Theft-Felony 3,383 66 2 19 2 11 <1

Theft-Misd 7,959 84 7 4 3 2 -

Theft-Retail Fel 2,253 74 4 9 3 10 -

Theft-Retail Misd 3,523 87 7 4 1 <1 -

VUFA-Felony 1,493 32 3 40 2 23 -

VUFA-Misd 343 83 6 5 3 3 -

WMD-Use or Threat 9 89 - - - 11 -

Total 98,608 76 7 8 3 5 <1





Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 19. Conformity to the Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Offenses: Pennsylvania, 2009



Type of Drug Conformity to the Guidelines(%)

Drug Category AmountTotal

NumberWithin:

StandardWithin:

AggravatedWithin:

MitigatedOutside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Cocaine, Meth., PCP < 2.5 g 2,590 51 4 26 8 11 <1

2.5-<10 g 1,340 54 6 17 12 11 <1

10-<50 g 769 45 14 17 18 6 <1

50-<100 g 173 46 6 20 5 24 -

100-1000 g 209 51 5 14 2 28 -

>1000 g 38 47 3 11 - 39 -

Subtotal 5,119 51 6 21 10 11 <1

Designer Drugs Designer Drugs 3 - 100 - - - -

Subtotal 3 - 100 - - - -

Ecstasy 1-<50 pills (6th Ed.) 27 85 11 - 4 - -

50-<100 pills (6th Ed.) 5 60 - - - 40 -

100-<1000 pills (6th Ed.) 6 33 17 33 - 17 -

>=1000 pills (6th Ed.) 2 50 - - - 50 -

Subtotal 40 73 10 5 3 10 -

Look-Alike Drugs Look-Alike Drugs 2 100 - - - - -

Subtotal 2 100 - - - - -

Marijuana Small Amount 1,393 92 6 2 <1 <1 -

<1 lb/<10 plants 1,395 75 9 2 7 7 -

1-<10 lbs/10-<21 plants 214 73 5 7 9 6 -

10-<50 lbs/21-<50 plants 65 48 8 29 11 5 -

>=51 plants (5th Ed.) 23 48 17 17 - 17 -

50-1000 lbs/50-1000 plants 17 29 18 29 24 - -

Subtotal 3,107 81 7 3 4 4 -

Meth, Manuf w/Child No Bod.Inj. to Child (6th Ed.) 2 50 - 50 - - -

Subtotal 2 50 - 50 - - -

Narcotics < 1 g (heroin) 1,026 55 4 22 7 11 <1

< 2.5 g 509 52 1 35 2 9 <1

1-<10 g (heroin) 484 50 7 19 12 12 <1

2.5-<10 g 72 49 14 21 7 8 1

10-<50 g 116 53 6 11 23 7 -

50-<100 g 18 61 6 6 - 28 -

100-1000 g 24 38 - 17 4 42 -

>1000 g 2 - - 50 - 50 -

Subtotal 2,251 53 4 24 8 11 <1


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



Type of Drug Conformity to the Guidelines(%)

Drug Category AmountTotal

NumberWithin:

StandardWithin:

AggravatedWithin:

MitigatedOutside:Above

Outside:Below

Outside:Procedural

Other Drug Offenses Stat Limit 3.5 yr 33 82 - 18 - - -

Stat Limit 2.5 yr 597 73 7 8 5 6 <1

Stat Limit 2.5 yr (6th Ed.) 9 89 - 11 - - -

Stat Limit 1.5 yr 1,839 71 2 12 1 14 -

Stat Limit 6 mon 8,220 89 4 3 2 2 <1

Stat Limit 3 mon 2 100 - - - - -

Subtotal 10,700 85 4 5 2 4 <1

Oxycontin 1-20 pills (6th Ed.) 260 58 2 26 4 10 <1

21-50 pills (6th Ed.) 59 32 10 37 2 19 -

51-100 pills (6th Ed.) 73 36 5 36 8 15 -

>100 pills (6th Ed.) 79 27 1 20 6 46 -

Subtotal 471 46 3 28 5 18 <1

Prescription Pills 1-20 pills 10 20 - 70 - 10 -

21-50 pills 9 11 - 67 11 11 -

51-100 pills 8 - - 75 - 25 -

>100 pills 9 11 - 22 - 67 -

Subtotal 36 11 - 58 3 28 -

Total 21,731 72 5 11 5 7 <1

Percent of Sentences for Drug Offenses Within Standard Range of the Guidelines:

Pennsylvania, 2009

Percent within Standard Range

50% to 59%

60% to 69%

70% to 79%

80% to 89%

90% to 100%



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Procedural Departures not reported; percentages may not total 100%

Table 20. Conformity to the Guidelines by OGS and PRS: Pennsylvania, 2009



Offense Gravity ScorePrior Record Score


14 Number 178 31 37 18 27 37 13 9 350

% Within GLs* 89 77 95 83 67 59 38 33 80

% Outside Above 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

% Outside Below 11 23 5 17 30 41 62 67 20

13 Number 50 4 6 7 4 10 2 - 83

% Within GLs* 66 100 50 57 100 60 50 - 66

% Outside Above 10 0 0 43 0 0 0 - 10

% Outside Below 24 0 50 0 0 40 50 - 24

12 Number 170 40 37 10 26 35 16 3 337

% Within GLs* 69 70 54 90 54 46 81 33 65

% Outside Above 17 13 5 0 8 9 0 0 12

% Outside Below 14 18 41 10 38 46 19 67 23

11 Number 331 49 71 45 50 79 18 8 651

% Within GLs* 64 61 70 60 60 53 56 63 62

% Outside Above 5 6 4 7 4 5 0 0 5

% Outside Below 31 33 25 33 36 42 44 38 33

10 Number 788 172 255 164 207 314 95 32 2,027

% Within GLs* 74 58 58 59 62 59 59 56 65

% Outside Above 13 21 9 5 9 7 7 0 11

% Outside Below 13 21 33 35 29 34 34 44 25

9 Number 704 193 171 114 84 135 43 8 1,452

% Within GLs* 96 75 61 64 63 64 42 38 80

% Outside Above 3 4 3 4 0 2 19 0 3

% Outside Below 1 21 36 32 37 34 40 63 17

8 Number 963 197 202 126 157 265 46 - 1,956

% Within GLs* 91 77 72 63 61 68 61 - 80

% Outside Above 8 13 16 15 11 11 7 - 10

% Outside Below 0 10 12 22 27 21 33 - 10

7 Number 2,047 443 512 289 334 539 213 - 4,377

% Within GLs* 91 78 76 72 60 70 62 - 80

% Outside Above 7 10 12 7 16 6 11 - 9

% Outside Below 1 12 12 21 23 24 26 - 10

6 Number 2,538 554 793 462 456 915 168 - 5,886

% Within GLs* 92 91 78 77 77 64 65 - 83

% Outside Above 7 7 7 3 7 6 2 - 6

% Outside Below 1 1 15 19 15 30 33 - 11

5 Number 9,053 2,380 1,703 1,130 812 1,824 479 - 17,381

% Within GLs* 94 94 94 77 68 68 46 - 88

% Outside Above 2 3 4 2 2 6 4 - 3

% Outside Below 0 0 0 19 28 26 50 - 7

4 Number 1,722 381 286 190 145 301 102 - 3,127

% Within GLs* 95 99 99 100 70 73 53 - 92

% Outside Above 4 1 1 0 3 1 1 - 3

% Outside Below 0 0 0 0 26 26 46 - 5


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



Offense Gravity ScorePrior Record Score


3 Number 12,277 3,134 2,649 1,860 1,466 3,149 817 - 25,352

% Within GLs* 94 97 99 99 99 70 62 - 91

% Outside Above 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 - 3

% Outside Below 1 1 0 0 0 29 36 - 5

2 Number 4,836 1,238 985 688 495 960 298 - 9,500

% Within GLs* 97 98 97 98 99 100 69 - 97

% Outside Above 3 2 2 2 1 0 1 - 2

% Outside Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 - 1

1 Number 15,841 3,243 2,280 1,418 1,086 1,750 511 - 26,129

% Within GLs* 97 97 98 99 99 99 98 - 98

% Outside Above 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 - 1

% Outside Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0

Total Number 51,498 12,059 9,987 6,521 5,349 10,313 2,821 60 98,608

% Within GLs* 95 94 92 90 85 76 66 50 91

% Outside Above 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 0 3

% Outside Below 1 2 4 8 11 21 31 50 5




Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

*Based on most serious offense per offender.

*Basic sentencing levels are determined by Offense Gravity Score (OGS) and Prior Record Score (PRS) only. They are displayed in color.

*Some sentences may have different level assignments based on mandatory sentences or enhancements.

Some sentences may have different level assignments based on mandatory sentences or enhancements.Basic sentencing levels are displayed in color, determined by PRS & OGS only. DUIs Not Included.Based on most serious offense per offender.

Table 21. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison:Pennsylvania, 2009DUIs excluded


Table 21. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison:Pennsylvania, 2009DUIs excluded

PRIOR RECORD SCORE

OGS LEVEL 0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOC TOTAL

14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 16 0 4 0 3 4 0 0 27

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 68 10 22 8 13 26 1 0 148

10 101 18 50 48 59 101 14 0 391

9 43 24 45 37 24 42 5 0 220

8 4 218 61 82 49 71 101 11 593

7 3 271 100 146 100 120 229 53 1,019

6 222 67 129 111 126 328 28 1,011

5 2 111 62 73 72 68 248 87 721

4 10 13 7 10 7 32 13 92

3 49 37 48 59 52 204 67 516

2 1 9 4 8 12 11 39 19 102

1 3 2 4 2 1 11 5 28

TOTAL 1121 398 618 508 555 1365 303 4,868

Based on most serious offense per offender

Table 21a. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison: DUIs OnlyPennsylvania, 2009

Based on most serious offense per offender

Table 21a. State Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to State Prison: DUIs OnlyPennsylvania, 2009

PRIOR RECORD SCORE

GRADE 0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOC TOTAL

Unclassifed Misdemeanor 27 7 3 1 0 5 1 0 44

Misdemeanor 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 6

Misdemeanor 1 121 82 101 71 57 138 17 0 587

Total 148 90 106 72 58 145 18 0 637


* DUI sentences (shown separately) are treated as Level 3 offenses at sentencing because of the application of a mandatory sentence (unless PRS indicates Level 4)


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


*DUI sentences (shown separately) are treated as Level 3 offenses at sentencing because of the application of a mandatory sentence (unless PRS indicates Level 4)


Table 22. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: DUIs excludedPennsylvania, 2009


Table 22. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: DUIs excludedPennsylvania, 2009

PRIOR RECORD SCORE

OGS LEVEL 0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOC TOTAL

14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

12 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

11 20 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 22

10 29 6 20 10 7 7 0 0 79

9 143 49 30 11 6 2 0 0 241

8 4 190 25 31 10 9 10 2 277

7 3 517 126 95 56 31 28 3 856

6 609 154 196 93 64 90 4 1,210

5 2 954 386 309 207 114 237 14 2,221

4 321 93 80 70 43 78 6 691

3 2069 733 724 462 414 846 55 5,303

2 1 458 214 185 144 110 245 30 1,386

1 447 186 169 134 92 163 23 1,214

TOTAL 5771 1972 1840 1198 890 1707 137 13,515


*Basic sentencing levels are determined by Offense Gravity Score (OGS) and Prior Record Score (PRS) only. They are displayed in color.

*Some sentences may have different level assignments based on mandatory sentences or enhancements.

Based on most serious offense per offender.

Table 22a. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: DUIs ONLYPennsylvania, 2009

Based on most serious offense per offender.

Table 22a. County Intermediate Punishment Eligible Offenders Sentenced to County Jail: DUIs ONLYPennsylvania, 2009

PRIOR RECORD SCORE

GRADE 0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOC TOTAL

Unclassifed Misdemeanor 4829 888 539 307 175 254 20 0 7,012

Misdemeanor 2 136 44 31 13 7 9 0 0 240

Misdemeanor 1 1937 578 345 193 121 159 10 0 3,343

Total 6902 1510 915 513 303 422 30 0 10,595


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 23. State and County Intermediate Punishment Eligibility and Sentences: Pennsylvania, 2009

Level 5SIP CIP

Sentenced 21 73

Eligible 899 1,249

Level 4SIP CIP

Sentenced 73 336

Eligible 2,096 3,015

Level 3SIP CIP

NonDUI Sentenced 108 1,083

Eligible 1,686 7,103

DUI DUI Sentenced 85 5,744

DUI eligible 722 17,012

Total 2,408 24,115

CIP, 4% DUI/CIP,

24%

County Jail, 62%SIP,1%

State Prison, 8%

CIP, 6%


State Prison, 63%

CIP, 11%


State Prison, 51%

State Prison, 98%

SIP, 2%

State Prison, 97%

SIP, 3%

State Prison, 82%

SIP, 6% DUI/SIP, 12%

Level 2SIP CIP

Sentenced 28 785

Eligible 403 7,900

Level 1SIP CIP

Sentenced 0 91

Eligible 12 1,003

CIP, 4% DUI/CIP,

24%


State Prison, 8%

CIP, 6%


State Prison, 63%

CIP, 11%


State Prison, 51%

CIP, 10%

County Jail, 84%State Prison, 5%

CIP, 9%

County Jail, 90%State Prison, 1%

State Prison, 98%

SIP, 2%

State Prison, 97%

SIP, 3%

State Prison, 82%

SIP, 6% DUI/SIP, 12%

State Prison, 93%

SIP, 7%

State Prison, 100%

Based on most serious offense per offender. Cases including deadly weapon enhancement are excludedFor SIP sentences, "Eligible" includes offenders sentenced to State Prison or State IP.For CIP sentences, "Eligible" includes offenders sentenced to State Prison, SIP, County Jail or County IP.

*Based on most serious offense per offender. Cases including Deadly Weapon Enhancements are excluded.

*For SIP sentences, “Eligible” includes offenders sentenced to State Prison or State IP

*For CIP sentences, “Eligible” includes offenders sentenced to State Prison, SIP, County Jail, or County IP


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 24. Type of Sentences Imposed by Sentencing Guideline Level: Pennsylvania, 2009

*Confinement sentences, particularly at Levels 1 and 2, may reflect pre-trial detention (time served sentences), DUI mandatories, and multiple

offenses in the criminal incident as well as aggravated/departure sentences.

Guideline Level 5Type of SentenceState Prison 3,767 71%State Intermediate Punishment 28 1%County Jail 821 16%County Intermediate Punishment 85 2%Probation 471 9%

Other Restorative Sanction 114 2%5,286 100%

Type of SentenceState Prison 4,068 53%State Intermediate Punishment 120 2%County Jail 2,080 27%County Intermediate Punishment 477 6%Probation 726 9%


Type of SentenceState Prison 4,456 11%State Intermediate

Table 24. Type of Sentence Imposed by Sentencing Guideline Level: Pennsylvania, 2009

Guideline Level 4

Guideline Level 3

State Prison, 71%

State Intermediate Punishment,

1%

County Jail, 16%

County Intermediate Punishment,

2%

Probation, 9%Other

Restorative Sanction, 2%

State Prison, 53%


2%

County Jail, 27%


6%

Probation, 9%Other


State Prison, 11%


Other Restorative Sanction, 1%

State IntermediatePunishment 354 1%County Jail 20,643 53%County Intermediate Punishment 8,302 21%Probation 4,894 13%


Type of SentenceState Prison 1,245 4%State Intermediate Punishment 69 <1%County Jail 9,173 26%County Intermediate Punishment 1,069 3%Probation 22,302 63%

Other Restorative Sanction 1,298 4%35,156 100%

Type of SentenceState Prison 45 <1%State Intermediate Punishment 4 <1%County Jail 1,344 12%County Intermediate Punishment 143 1%Probation 9 043 79%

Guideline Level 2

Guideline Level 1

State Prison, 71%


1%

County Jail, 16%


2%

Probation, 9%Other


State Prison, 53%


2%

County Jail, 27%


6%

Probation, 9%Other


State Prison, 11%


1%

County Jail, 53%County

Intermediate Punishment,

21%

Probation, 13%


State Prison, 4%


<1%

County Jail, 26%


3%

Probation, 63%


State Prison, <1%

Probation, 79% Other


Probation 9,043 79%


State Prison, 71%


1%

County Jail, 16%


2%

Probation, 9%Other


State Prison, 53%


2%

County Jail, 27%


6%

Probation, 9%Other


State Prison, 11%


1%

County Jail, 53%County

Intermediate Punishment,

21%

Probation, 13%


State Prison, 4%


<1%

County Jail, 26%


3%

Probation, 63%


State Prison, <1%


<1%County Jail,

12%


1%

Probation, 79% Other



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score: Pennsylvania, 2009

OGS Number Percent14 350 7%13 83 2%12 337 6%11 651 12%10 2,027 38%9 1,452 27%8 61 1%7 269 5%6 46 1%5 8 0%4 0 0%3 2 0%2 0 0%1 0 0%

Total 5,286

OGS Number Percent14 013 - 0%12 - 0%11 - 0%10 - 0%9 - 0%8 964 13%7 1,680 22%6 2,119 28%5 1,635 21%4 104 1%

Level 4

Level 5

14131211109876543

OGS

Level 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 5

4 104 1%3 1,141 15%2 - 0%1 - 0%

Total 7,643 100%

OGS Number Percent14 013 - 0%12 - 0%11 - 0%10 - 0%9 - 0%8 931 2%7 2,428 6%6 3,721 10%5 11,291 29%4 641 2%3 4,816 12%2 1,265 3%1 14,049 36%

Total 39,142

Level 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 3


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Table 25. Number of Sentences by Level of Offense and Offense Gravity Score: Pennsylvania, 2009

*Based on 98,608 Sentences

OGS Number Percent14 013 - 0%12 - 0%11 - 0%10 - 0%9 - 0%8 - 0%7 - 0%6 - 0%5 4,447 13%4 2,382 7%3 19,393 55%2 3,403 10%1 5,531 16%

Total 35,156

OGS Number Percent14 0 013 0 0%12 0 0%11 0 0%10 0 0%9 0 0%8 0 0%7 0 0%6 0 0%5 0 0%4 0 0%3 0 0%

Level 2

Level 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 2

141312111098765432

OGS

Level 1

3 0 0%2 4,832 42%1 6,549 58%

Total 11,381

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1413121110987654321

OGS

Level 1


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Based on 101,576 offenses.

Table 26. Economic Sanctions and Assessments: Pennsylvania, 2009

Based on 101,576 offenses.

Table 26. Economic Sanctions and Assessments: Pennsylvania, 2009

Summary Statistics:Based only on offenses for which each of the following was

assessed:

Type ofSanction orAssessment

Numberof

Offenses % Mean Median Mode Total

Fines 44,023 43 $723 $400 $100 $31,837,190

Restitution 18,314 18 $4,207 $493 $134 $77,039,474

Costs 13,793 14 $1,364 $625 $100 $18,816,271

Fees 2,888 3 $1,722 $300 $100 $4,974,565

OGS PRS5 0 225 — 250 $1,406 — $1,563 $4,500 — $5,0004 2 300 — 325 $1,875 — $2,031 $6,000 — $6,500

1 225 — 250 $1,406 — $1,563 $4,500 — $5,0000 100 — 125 $625 — $781 $2,000 — $2,500

3 3 300 — 325 $1,875 — $2,031 $6,000 — $6,5002 225 — 250 $1,406 — $1,563 $4,500 — $5,0001 150 — 175 $938 — $1,094 $3,000 — $3,5000 50 — 75 $313 — $469 $1,000 — $1,500

2 4 150 — 175 $938 — $1,094 $3,000 — $3,5003 125 — 150 $781 — $938 $2,500 — $3,0002 100 — 125 $625 — $781 $2,000 — $2,5001 75 — 100 $469 — $625 $1,500 — $2,0000 25 — 50 $156 — $313 $500 — $1,000

1 5 150 — 175 $938 — $1,094 $3,000 — $3,5004 125 — 150 $781 — $938 $2,500 — $3,0003 100 — 125 $625 — $781 $2,000 — $2,5002 75 — 100 $469 — $625 $1,500 — $2,0001 50 — 75 $313 — $469 $1,000 — $1,5000 25 — 50 $156 — $313 $500 — $1,000

Recommended Fines(@$6.25/hour)

Recommended Fines(@$20/hour)

Recommended CSHours

Fines and Community Service Recommendations

* $7.25 was the minimum wage in 2009. $15.87 was the median wage in 2009 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 27. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 27. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Offense Type [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2009

State Prison County Jail CIP Probation Other RS

Offense TypeTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 26 10 38 15.1 34.4 11 42 9.3 23.2 - - - 5 19 57.6 - -

Assault-Simple 20 3 15 4.7 20.0 8 40 5.0 19.0 2 10 1.7 7 35 18.9 - -

Drug-Felony 45 16 36 24.2 57.8 18 40 5.0 19.8 5 11 12.0 6 13 35.0 - -

Homicide-Mur 1 or 2 11 11 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Homicide-Murder 3 17 17 100 166 358 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other F-1 80 57 71 55.8 122 15 19 15.4 32.5 - - - 6 8 76.0 2 3

Other F-2 38 19 50 18.5 45.5 13 34 7.6 21.1 1 3 5.9 5 13 69.6 - -

Other F-3 27 13 48 13.2 32.7 7 26 7.5 21.7 1 4 2.0 5 19 36.0 1 4

Other M 11 - - - - 1 9 0.1 0.9 - - - 7 64 9.1 3 27

Other M-1 24 4 17 15.8 33.0 7 29 5.1 16.8 2 8 2.2 11 46 31.4 - -

Other M-2 22 3 14 5.0 18.0 5 23 5.4 17.5 1 5 6.0 11 50 20.1 2 9

Other M-3 6 - - - - 1 17 4.0 12.0 - - - 4 67 12.0 1 17

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 122 94 77 48.0 104 19 16 11.5 23.9 - - - 6 5 70.0 3 2

Robbery-F2 18 8 44 21.5 51.0 9 50 11.8 27.4 - - - 1 6 60.0 - -

Theft-Felony 20 5 25 12.9 28.8 9 45 7.6 20.6 2 10 5.7 3 15 36.0 1 5

Theft-Misd 35 2 6 3.5 21.0 12 34 2.6 20.0 1 3 0.5 20 57 18.5 - -

Total 522 262 50 47.5 105 135 26 8.2 22.4 15 3 6.2 97 19 33.5 13 2



Table 28. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Age [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2009


Table 28. Summary of Sentences Imposed by Age [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2009


Offender Age (yrs.)Total

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


14 6 4 67 33.8 97.5 - - - - - - - 2 33 72.0 - -

15 55 37 67 47.1 108 6 11 8.1 19.7 - - - 9 16 42.0 3 5

16 101 62 61 46.7 103 24 24 8.7 25.2 1 <1 0.5 13 13 40.8 1 <1

17 360 159 44 48.2 105 105 29 8.1 21.9 14 4 6.6 73 20 30.1 9 3

Total 522 262 50 47.5 105 135 26 8.2 22.4 15 3 6.2 97 19 33.5 13 2



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 29. Summary of Sentences Imposed by County [Juvenile Offenders Only(<18 years old)]: Pennsylvania, 2009




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Adams 4 1 25 24.0 48.0 1 25 3.0 23.0 - - - 2 50 12.0 - -

Allegheny 43 17 40 64.6 136 5 12 9.4 18.8 4 9 12.0 10 23 19.2 7 16

Armstrong - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Beaver 5 1 20 15.0 30.0 3 60 6.0 17.5 - - - 1 20 12.0 - -

Bedford - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Berks 14 11 79 57.3 125 2 14 11.5 23.0 - - - 1 7 36.0 - -

Blair 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 100 60.0 - -

Bradford 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 12.0 - -

Bucks 2 1 50 48.0 120 1 50 3.0 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Butler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cambria 11 1 9 24.0 48.0 5 45 8.6 19.0 - - - 5 45 26.4 - -

Cameron - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Carbon 2 1 50 12.0 24.0 1 50 18.0 36.0 - - - - - - - -

Centre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chester 8 7 88 27.7 64.0 1 13 0.5 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Clarion 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 12.0 - -

Clearfield 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 24.0 - -

Clinton 1 - - - - 1 100 1.0 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Columbia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Crawford 3 1 33 102 240 1 33 11.5 24.0 - - - 1 33 24.0 - -

Cumberland 7 2 29 21.0 42.0 4 57 10.2 23.0 - - - 1 14 12.0 - -

Dauphin 36 24 67 36.0 81.3 6 17 6.7 18.5 2 6 4.2 2 6 15.0 2 6

Delaware 36 13 36 39.3 81.5 18 50 7.5 23.4 1 3 2.3 4 11 33.0 - -

Elk 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 12.0 - -

Erie 6 4 67 36.0 81.0 2 33 4.7 20.5 - - - - - - - -

Fayette 5 2 40 54.0 108 2 40 11.5 23.0 - - - - - - 1 20

Forest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Franklin 2 - - - - 1 50 3.0 23.0 1 50 0.5 - - - - -

Fulton 2 2 100 14.0 48.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Huntingdon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Indiana 1 - - - - 1 100 11.5 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Jefferson 1 - - - - 1 100 2.4 24.0 - - - - - - - -

Juniata 1 1 100 7.5 18.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lackawanna 31 20 65 17.7 41.4 8 26 5.7 17.0 - - - 3 10 20.0 - -

Lancaster 11 8 73 40.3 87.4 - - - - - - - 3 27 24.0 - -

Lawrence 2 2 100 12.0 24.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lebanon 14 8 57 45.0 108 2 14 1.7 23.0 1 7 9.0 3 21 17.7 - -

Lehigh 10 5 50 78.8 162 5 50 7.6 22.2 - - - - - - - -

Luzerne 5 3 60 25.3 54.0 1 20 3.8 12.0 1 20 3.0 - - - - -

Lycoming 11 5 45 34.8 79.2 - - - - 3 27 3.3 3 27 12.0 - -

McKean 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 100 24.0 - -

Mercer 1 - - - - 1 100 11.0 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Mifflin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monroe 15 4 27 31.0 69.0 10 67 5.7 19.2 1 7 0.5 - - - - -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




CountyTotal

Number Num %MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

MeanMin

MeanMax Num %

Lengthof RIP Num %


Montgomery 19 10 53 39.0 82.8 6 32 12.5 31.2 - - - 3 16 20.3 - -

Montour - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northampton 6 - - - - 5 83 10.8 23.8 - - - - - - 1 17

Northumberland 5 4 80 11.3 24.0 - - - - - - - 1 20 24.0 - -

Perry 10 3 30 17.3 38.7 3 30 6.0 16.3 - - - 4 40 15.0 - -

Philadelphia 123 76 62 71.4 156 20 16 13.0 28.6 1 <1 12.0 24 20 67.8 2 2

Pike 1 - - - - 1 100 11.0 25.0 - - - - - - - -

Potter 1 - - - - 1 100 4.0 23.5 - - - - - - - -

Schuylkill 8 6 75 15.5 32.0 1 13 6.0 23.0 - - - 1 13 12.0 - -

Snyder 7 - - - - 4 57 6.6 16.5 - - - 3 43 64.0 - -

Somerset - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sullivan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Susquehanna 5 - - - - 4 80 3.7 19.4 - - - 1 20 9.0 - -

Tioga 1 - - - - 1 100 2.0 23.0 - - - - - - - -

Union 3 1 33 6.0 60.0 - - - - - - - 2 67 24.0 - -

Venango - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Warren 10 1 10 15.0 30.0 2 20 7.1 18.0 - - - 7 70 18.9 - -

Washington 3 - - - - 1 33 11.0 22.0 - - - 2 67 18.0 - -

Wayne 3 3 100 32.0 68.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Westmoreland 8 4 50 60.0 120 2 25 5.8 23.0 - - - 2 25 9.0 - -

Wyoming - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

York 12 10 83 57.3 145 1 8 6.0 12.0 - - - 1 8 12.0 - -

Total 522 262 50 47.5 105 135 26 8.2 22.4 15 3 6.2 97 19 33.5 13 2

Number of Juveniles (Younger than Age 18)Sentenced as Adults:

Pennsylvania, 2009

Number of Juveniles

None

Less than 5

5 to 9

10 to 24

25 to 49

50 or more



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng


Table 30. Completed or Inchoate Offenses by Offense Type: Pennsylvania, 2009



Completed Attempted Conspired Solicited

Offense TypeTotal

Number Num % Num % Num % Num %

Arson-F1 (persons) 77 68 88 5 6 4 5 - -

Arson-F2 (property) 61 48 79 - - 12 20 1 2

Assault-Agg By Veh while DUI 90 90 100 - - - - - -

Assault-Agg F1 (SBI) 577 556 96 - - 21 4 - -

Assault-Agg F2 (BI) 893 869 97 10 1 12 1 2 <1

Assault-By Life Prisoner 1 1 100 - - - - - -

Assault-Reck Endanger 1,075 1,068 100 - - 7 <1 - -

Assault-Simple 5,107 5,036 99 12 <1 56 1 3 <1

Assault-Terr Threat 1,086 1,084 100 - - 2 <1 - -

BUI: 3 3 100 - - - - - -

Bad Checks 1,128 1,125 100 1 <1 2 <1 - -

Burg-F1/House-No Person 1,126 981 87 38 3 107 10 - -

Burg-F1/House-Person 354 309 87 20 6 25 7 - -

Burg-F1/No House-Person 53 38 72 4 8 11 21 - -

Burglary-F2 1,111 946 85 45 4 120 11 - -

Carjacking 39 33 85 2 5 4 10 - -

Catastrophe 29 29 100 - - - - - -

Corrupting Minor 611 608 100 3 <1 - - - -

Crim Mischief-F3 100 96 96 - - 3 3 1 1

Crim Trespass-F2 620 561 90 22 4 37 6 - -

Crim Trespass-F3 707 674 95 15 2 18 3 - -

DUI-M 13,766 13,766 100 - - - - - -

DUI-M1 8,251 8,251 100 - - - - - -

DUI-M2 413 413 100 - - - - - -

Drug-Felony 10,528 9,573 91 304 3 649 6 2 <1

Drug-Misd 11,203 11,008 98 67 <1 107 <1 21 <1

Escape-Felony 425 414 97 10 2 1 <1 - -

Escape-Misd 253 250 99 2 <1 1 <1 - -

Forgery-F2 251 237 94 2 <1 12 5 - -

Forgery-F3 678 643 95 7 1 28 4 - -

Forgery-M1 239 229 96 3 1 7 3 - -

Homicide-By Veh (DUI) 8 8 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-By Veh (No DUI) 21 21 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-By Veh while DUI 44 44 100 - - - - - -



Homicide-Invol Mansl 63 63 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-Murder 1 107 106 100 - - 1 <1 - -

Homicide-Murder 2 21 21 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-Murder 3 180 180 100 - - - - - -

Homicide-Vol Mansl 13 12 92 1 8 - - - -


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng



Completed Attempted Conspired Solicited

Offense TypeTotal

Number Num % Num % Num % Num %

Identity Theft 336 318 95 2 <1 16 5 - -

Incest 17 17 100 - - - - - -

Indecent Assault 453 442 98 10 2 1 <1 - -

Indecent Assault-Agg 101 98 97 3 3 - - - -

Invol Dev Sex Inter 167 157 94 7 4 - - 3 2

Kidnapping 24 18 75 2 8 4 17 - -

Other Felony 2,692 2,588 96 22 <1 75 3 7 <1

Other Misdemeanor 8,310 8,229 100 19 <1 49 <1 13 <1

Other Misdemeanor 1 2,820 2,779 99 10 <1 28 <1 3 <1

Rape 150 135 90 13 9 1 <1 1 <1

Robbery-F1 (SBI) 1,093 974 89 12 1 107 10 - -

Robbery-F2 470 402 86 8 2 60 13 - -

Robbery-F3 (w/force) 389 324 83 11 3 54 14 - -

Sex. Offender Registry-Fel. 308 307 100 1 <1 - - - -

Sex. Offender Registry-Misd. 7 7 100 - - - - - -

Sexual Assault 72 69 96 3 4 - - - -

Sexual Assault-Statutory 238 234 98 1 <1 1 <1 2 <1

Stalking/Harassment 718 713 100 1 <1 3 <1 1 <1

Theft-Felony 3,383 3,077 91 91 3 215 6 - -

Theft-Misd 7,959 7,408 93 198 2 352 4 1 <1

Theft-Retail Fel 2,253 2,162 96 25 1 66 3 - -

Theft-Retail Misd 3,523 3,272 93 20 <1 231 7 - -

VUFA-Felony 1,493 1,482 100 - - 10 <1 1 <1

VUFA-Misd 343 332 97 2 <1 9 3 - -

WMD-Use or Threat 9 9 100 - - - - - -

Total 98,737 95,110 96 1,036 1 2,529 3 62 <1



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDICES

Com

mon

wea

lth M

edia

Ser

vice

s

96 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX A: NEW OFFENSE LISTING

Title Section OffensePrior Statutory

GradeNew Statutory

GradePenaltyProvision

OGSAssignment(6th Edition,Revised)

Bill Number2009/10Session Act

EffectiveDate

Pa.C.S.A.18 1107.1 Restitution for identity theft new HB 222 Act 2009-42 Nov 17, 2009

18 5511 Cruelty to animals HB 39 Act 2009-38 Aug 27, 2009(h)(1)(i)-(iv) (modified)(h)(2)(i) debarks new summary(h)(3)(i) docking new summary(h)(4)(i) surgical births new summary(h)(5)(i) declaw new summary(h.1) Animal fighting (modified) no change no change Oct 26, 2009

18 6312 Sexual abuse of children (modified) no change no change HB 89 Act 2009-15 Sep 14, 2009

42 5701 Right to bail (modified) SB 366 Act 2009-39 Aug 27, 2009


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX B: CASE LAW HIGHLIGHTS– 2009 (Source: West Headnotes as published in the Pennsylvania Reporter)

Commonwealth v. Scassera, 965 A.2d 247. (Pa.Super., 01/05/2009)(Guidelines)Sentencing court’s sentencing of petitioner to the statutory maximum sentence without undertaking the elemental exercise of properly calculating and considering petitioner’s prior record score and failure to consider sentencing guideline ranges was violation of sentencing code and reversible error; petitioner’s prior record score was incorrectly reported, and sentencing judge demonstrated no awareness or consideration of guideline sentencing ranges. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

A sentencing court must consider the sentencing guidelines, and the consideration must be more than mere fluff. While the sentencing guidelines are advisory and nonbinding, a sentencing court must ascertain the correct guideline ranges before deciding that a departure is in order. A sentencing judge must demonstrate an awareness of the guideline sentencing ranges so that the appellate court can analyze whether the reasons for a departure from the guideline ranges are adequate.

Petitioner was entitled to vacation of sentence and remand of the matter for re-sentencing, to be conducted in accordance with the sentencing code and settled precedent, where original sentence omitted proper calculation of his prior record score and thoughtful consideration of the sentencing guidelines. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

Commonwealth v. Hoke, 962 A.2d 664. (Pa., 01/22/2009)(Mandatory)Mandatory minimum sentencing provision of statute governing sentencing for offenses involving manufacture of methamphetamine did not apply to conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, where plain language of sentencing statute at issue clearly and unambiguously required that mandatory minimum sentence be imposed on any person convicted of manufacture of methamphetamine, manufacture and conspiracy were separate offenses, conspiracy was not element of manufacture offense, and conspiracy statute was codified separately from any statute involving drug offenses, covered conspiracies to commit any offense, and contained no sentencing provisions. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (k).

Commonwealth v. Miller, 965 A.2d 276. (Pa.Super., 01/28/2009)(Discretionary Aspects)In prosecution for murder in the third degree, trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering seriousness of offense, defendant’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and risk to fire fighters caused by defendant’s conduct in setting fire to victim’s home following her death in sentencing defendant, notwithstanding defendant’s argument that court improperly considered arson charge that was nolle prosseo as part of plea agreement. When imposing a sentence, the court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.

Commonwealth v. Crork, 966 A.2d 585. (Pa.Super., 02/10/2009)(Guidelines)Imposing sentence one year above aggravated range of sentencing guidelines for robbery was not manifestly unreasonable; while sentencing court mentioned defendant’s prior record, court viewed defendant’s history of prior offenses as supporting evidence that defendant could not accept fact that society had certain rules and could not abide by those rules, and prior record was not sole factor employed by trial court in fashioning sentence as they also considered seriousness of offense, relatively young age of victim, impact of crime on victim, defendant’s own age, health, intelligence and maturity level, his work history, and his unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation from his drug and alcohol problem.

When reviewing a sentence outside of the guideline range, the essential question is whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. A sentence may be found unreasonable if the sentence was imposed without express or implicit consideration by the sentencing court of the general standards applicable to sentencing.

Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773. (Pa.Super., 03/17/2009)(Guidelines)Sentence of 20 to 40 years imposed upon defendant, who pled guilty to third degree murder for participating with two codefendants in beating victim to death, was reasonable; sentence was within guidelines range, and although court considered mitigating factors, including defendant’s psychological issues, it found such factors were outweighed by fact that defendant inflicted fatal blow to victim, failed to aid victim despite knowing that victim would die, and drank at a bar while victim suffocated. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c, d).

98 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120. (Pa.Super., 05/21/2009)(Guidelines)Imposition of aggravated range sentence for simple assault and terroristic threats was not improper; trial court noted defendant’s poor employment history, long history of recidivism, victim’s emotional trauma, and defendant’s failure to show any remorse for his crimes.

A sentencing court may consider any legal factor in determining that a sentence in the aggravated range should be imposed; in addition, the sentencing judge’s statement of reasons on the record must reflect this consideration, and the sentencing judge’s decision regarding the aggravation of a sentence will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.

(Discretionary Aspects)Silence at sentencing may not be the sole factor in determining a defendant’s lack of remorse.

Trial court’s admonishment emphasizing defendant’s failure to acknowledge responsibility for crimes he never admitted to committing at sentencing was improper.

It is appropriate for a trial court to consider a defendant’s lack of remorse as a factor at sentencing, provided that it is specifically considered in relation to protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the defendant’s rehabilitative needs.

Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128. (Pa.Super., 05/26/2009)(Voluntary Manslaughter)(Discretionary Aspects)Sentence of 240 months to 480 months of imprisonment for third degree murder was not abuse of discretion; court had benefit of reviewing information in pre-sentence investigative report together with memoranda that defense counsel referenced, there was a wealth of letters from relatives of defendant and from victim’s family and relatives and friends of victim’s family and court had opportunity to review all of those, and sentence imposed was neither outside applicable guidelines nor unreasonable. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2).

Commonwealth v. Brougher, 978 A.2d 373. (Pa.Super., 07/13/2009)(Enhancement)Evidence supported the trial court’s application of the deadly weapons enhancement, in prosecution for robbery with the threat of immediate serious injury; defendant pointed an air gun that looked like a real firearm at a store clerk’s face during a robbery, defendant, through counsel, stated at sentencing that he understood that the court could use the deadly weapons enhancement when imposing sentence, the current deadly weapons enhancement statute merely required a “device capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, ” and the air gun, while pointed at store clerk’s face, could cause serious bodily injury or death. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i-iii); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9712(a, e); 204 Pa.Code § 303.10(a)(1)(i-iii) .

When the maximum sentence under the deadly weapons enhancement is greater than the mandatory minimum, the court has discretion to apply the deadly weapons enhancement.

Commonwealth v. McKibben, 977 A.2d 1188. (Pa.Super., 07/14/2009)(Mandatory)Evidence that weapons were loaded and readily accessible to defendant and found in the same room as a controlled substance that was possessed with an intent to deliver was sufficient to allow imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offense committed with firearms, regardless of whether the drug transactions at issue were effected in close proximity to the firearms. 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1(a).

Commonwealth v. Brown, 982 A.2d 1017. (Pa.Super., 10/14/2009)(Discretionary Aspects)Where a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement specifying particular penalties, the defendant may not seek a discretionary appeal relating to those agreed-upon penalties.

Defendant convicted of misdemeanor hindering apprehension was entitled to seek appeal challenging trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining maximum term of defendant’s incarceration, where defendant and Commonwealth entered into plea agreement that specifically left maximum term of sentence to trial court’s discretion.

Defendant convicted of misdemeanor hindering apprehension was entitled to seek appeal challenging trial court’s exercise of discretion in determining location of defendant’s incarceration, where defendant and Commonwealth entered into plea agreement that did not include provision specifying type of facility in which defendant would be held, and left such determination to trial court’s discretion.

Defendant, in asserting on appeal that sentence imposed by trial court for misdemeanor hindering apprehension was unreasonable because he received state time for non-violent misdemeanor and because he was nonconfrontational during plea and sentencing hearings, did not present substantial question for discretionary appeal of whether sentence was inappropriate under sentencing code, since defendant offered no colorable argument or authority that non-violent crimes or misdemeanors could not result in state time or that defendant was exempt from such penalties because he had not been confrontational in prior proceedings.


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

Commonwealth v. Smith, 982 A.2d 1241. (Pa.Super., 10/30/2009)(Mandatory)Trial court was required on remand to conduct evidentiary hearing on issue of whether Commonwealth manipulated defendant’s sentence by waiting to arrest him until he had committed four separate drug transactions, over course of almost 11 months, resulting in an increase in mandatory minimum sentence from three to seven years.

(Appeal)Trial court was required on remand to conduct evidentiary hearing on issue of whether Commonwealth manipulated defendant’s sentence by waiting to arrest him until he had committed four separate drug transactions, over course of almost 11 months, resulting in an increase in mandatory minimum sentence from three to seven years.

Commonwealth v. Haag, 981 A.2d 902. (Pa., 10/23/2009)(Mandatory)Defendant, who committed a driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) offense at 11:40 pm and also at 1:00 am, could not be sentenced as a recidivist for his 1:00 am offense; statute provided for recidivist sentencing when an offender had been convicted of a “prior offense,” and defendant had not been convicted of DUI for his 11:40 pm offense at the time he committed the 1:00 am offense; disapproving Commonwealth v. Misner, 946 A.2d 119, Commonwealth v. Nieves, 935 A.2d 887, and Commonwealth v. Stafford, 932 A.2d 214. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(b), 3804(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), 3806.

(DUI)Defendant, who committed a driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) offense at 11:40 pm and also at 1:00 am, could not be sentenced as a recidivist for his 1:00 am offense; statute provided for recidivist sentencing when an offender had been convicted of a “prior offense,” and defendant had not been convicted of DUI for his 11:40 pm offense at the time he committed the 1:00 am offense; disapproving Commonwealth v. Misner, 946 A.2d 119, Commonwealth v. Nieves, 935 A.2d 887, and Commonwealth v. Stafford, 932 A.2d 214. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(b), 3804(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), 3806.

Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777. (Pa.Super., 11/05/2009)(Guidelines)The sentencing court is permitted to deviate from the sentencing guidelines; however, the court must place on the record its reasons for the deviation. In sentencing outside of the guidelines, the court must demonstrate that it understands the sentencing guidelines ranges.

Where the trial judge deviates from the sentencing guidelines he must set forth on the record, at sentencing, in the defendant’s presence, the permissible range of sentences under the guidelines and, at least in summary form, the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled the court to deviate from the sentencing range.

Failure to put reasons on record supporting imposition of mitigated range sentence was improper; although it was brought out at sentencing that defendant was extremely remorseful, was fully employed, cooperated with victims’ attorney in civil lawsuit, and was continuing to cooperate with state attorney general’s office in related ongoing investigation, court was required to explicitly rely on one or more of these reasons in handing down below guidelines sentence, nor were any reasons listed on guideline sentence form required to be transmitted to sentencing commission, despite fact form specifically indicated sentence was mitigated. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

Trial court was not precluded from imposing multiple sentences for multiple victims where single accident occurred.

100 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

(Continued next page)

Sentencing Alternative Title / Section Purpose

Limitations on Eligibility

Sentencing Provisions

Guideline Conformity

Guilt without further Penalty

42§9721(a)(2) 42§9723

Probation would be appropriate, but appears unnecessary.

Except under mandatory provisions, no specific limitations on eligibility.

Does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement.

GWFP is a Restorative Sanction [RS]

Fine 42§9721(a)(5) 42§9726(a) 42§9758 18§1101 35§780-113(b)-(o) 75§3804

Fine Only: If, with regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history and character of the defendant, a fine alone suffices.

As authorized by law; court must determine defendant's ability to pay, and that fine will not prevent payment of restitution.

Fine may not exceed statutory maximum for offenses; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement.

Fine is a Restorative Sanction [RS].

Fine 42§9721(a)(5) 42§9726(b) 42§9758 18§1101 35§780-113(b)-(o) 75§3804

Fine as additional sentence: If defendant has derived pecuniary gain from the crime or that fine will serve deterrent or correctional purpose.

As authorized by law; court must determine defendant's ability to pay, and that fine will not prevent payment of restitution.

Fine may not exceed statutory maximum for offense; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement.

Fine is a Restorative Sanction [RS].

Restitution 42§9721(c) 42§9728 42§9720.1 18§1106 18§1107 18§11.1302

Restitution in addition to alternatives: Court shall order defendant to compensate victim of criminal conduct for damages or injury sustained.

No limitations on eligibility; mandatory restitution required by Acts 1995-12 and 1998-121.

Restitution shall be ordered, regardless of defendant’s ability to pay; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement.

Restitution is a Restorative Sanction [RS].

Order of Probation

42§9721(a)(1) 42§9722 42§9754

Probation suggested when criminal activity included no serious harm, defendant is generally law-abiding, the behavior is unlikely to recur, and/or confinement deemed unnecessary or would cause an excessive hardship.

No specific limitations on eligibility.

Flat sentence/not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement.

Probation is a Restorative Sanction [RS].

County Intermediate Punishment

42§9721(a)(6) 42§9802 42§9763 42§9773

County Intermediate Punishment is recommended for a defendant who would otherwise be sentenced to partial or total confinement in a county facility and who does not demonstrate present or past violent behavior.

Statutory listing of ineligible offenses and minimum program standards provided in Pennsylvania Code.

Flat sentence comprised of RIP and RS programs, not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; generally does not satisfy mandatory incarceration requirement. Exceptions: DUI and DUS/DUI.

Only Restrictive Intermediate Punishment [RIP] program(s) calculated as incarceration.

APPENDIX C: SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

SentencingAlternative Title / Section Purpose

Limitations onEligibility

SentencingProvisions

GuidelineConformity

State Intermediate Punishment

61§4101 State Intermediate Punishment is recommended for a drug dependent defendant who would otherwise be serving a minimum sentence of confinement in a state facility.

Assessment conducted by DOC prior to sentencing. Statutory listing of ineligible offenses.

Flat sentence of 24 months comprised of an individualized treatment plan and supervision controlled by DOC. Court may impose consecutive probation, total not to exceed statutory maximum of offense.

State Intermediate Punishment sentence of 24 months is a standard range sentence.

Partial Confinement

42§9721(a)(3) 42§9724 42§9755

Probation would appear inappropriate, but further appears total confinement not required, and facilities available.

Confinement consistent with protection of public; consideration of Sentencing Guidelines, PSI, and mandatories.

Min/Max sentence subject to parole; maximum not to exceed statutory maximum of offense. Exception: Flat sentence (no parole) of up to 90 days with consecutive County IP.

Only Partial Confinement minimum sentence calculated as incarceration.

Total Confinement

42§9721(a)(4) 42§9725 42§9756

Total confinement necessary because: undue risk that defendant would commit another crime under lesser alternative; correctional treatment provided most effectively via commitment to institution; or lesser sentence depreciates seriousness of crime.

Confinement consistent with protection of public; consideration of Sentencing Guidelines, PSI, and mandatories.

Min/Max sentence subject to parole; maximum not to exceed statutory maximum for offense; satisfies mandatory incarceration requirement. Exception: Flat sentence (no parole) of up to 90 days with consecutive County IP.

Only Total Confinement minimum sentence calculated as incarceration.

102 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX D: PENNSYLVANIA’S MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING PROVISIONS

Relevant Title/Section Description

Mandatory Minimum Sentence

Prosecutorial Notice Requirement

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. §2502(a); 42 Pa. C.S. §9711

Murder of the first degree Death or life imprisonment

No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. §2507(a)

Murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree

Death or life imprisonment

No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(a); 18 Pa. C.S. §2604(a)

First degree murder of an unborn child Life imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. §2502(a);

Murder of the second degree Life imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. §2507(b)

Murder of a law enforcement officer of the second degree

Life imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §1102(b); 18 Pa. C.S. §2604(b)

Second degree murder of an unborn child Life imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §2506; 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(14) or (30)

Drug delivery resulting in death 5 years total confinement No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §2704 Assault by life prisoner Life imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §2716(b)(1) Weapons of mass destruction and use resulted in death of an individual


18 Pa. C.S. §3301(a)(2) Arson endangering persons as murder of the first degree

Death or life imprisonment

No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §3301(a)(2) Arson endangering persons as murder of the second degree


18 Pa. C.S. 5123(a.1) Controlled substance contraband to confined person

2 years total confinement No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. 6111(h) Sale or transfer of firearms; subsequent violation 5 years imprisonment Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

18 Pa. C.S. §6121 Certain bullets prohibited 5 years imprisonment No notice required

18 Pa. C.S. §6314(a); 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(14) or (30)

Sentencing and penalties for trafficking drugs to minors

1 year total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

18 Pa. C.S. §6314(b); 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(14) or (30)

Sentencing and penalties for trafficking drugs to minors (promoting habitual use or engage in trafficking, 1,000 feet of real property of school, school bus, 500 feet school bus stop)

3 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

18 Pa. C.S. §6317; 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(14) or (30)

Drug free school zones 2 years total confinement / 4 year maximum

Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

42 Pa. C.S. §9712 Sentences for offenses committed with firearms 5 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

42 Pa. C.S. §9712.1 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(30)

Certain drug offenses committed with firearms 5 years total confinement Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

42 Pa. C.S. §9713 Sentences for offenses committed on public transportation



Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




42 Pa. C.S. §9714 Two/Three Strikes Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

2nd conviction for crime of violence 10 years 3rd or subsequent conviction for crime of violence

25 years total confinement or life imprisonment

42 Pa. C.S. §9715 Life imprisonment for homicide (previously convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter)

Life imprisonment Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

42 Pa. C.S. §9716 Two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable.

Longest mandatory minimum applies

42 Pa. C.S. §9717 Sentences for offenses against elderly persons No notice required / Notice required prior to guilty plea

18 Pa. C.S. §2702(a)(1) & (a)(4) Aggravated assault 2 years imprisonment

18 Pa. C.S. §3121 Rape 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3123 IDSI 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3922 Theft by deception 1 year imprisonment

(unless court finds justifiable cause)

42 Pa. C.S. §9718 Sentences for offenses against victims younger than age 16 years Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

18 Pa. C.S. §2702(a)(1) & (a)(4) Aggravated assault 2 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3121(a)(1)-(5) Rape 10 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3123 IDSI 10 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3125(a)(1)-(6) Aggravated indecent assault 5 years imprisonment 42 Pa. C.S. §9718 Sentences for offenses against victims younger than age 13 years Notice required prior to

sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

18 Pa. C.S. §2702(a)(1) Aggravated assault 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3121(c) & (d) Rape 10 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3125(a)(7) Aggravated indecent assault 5 years imprisonment 18 Pa. C.S. §3125(b) & (a)(1)-(6) Aggravated indecent assault 10 years imprisonment

42 Pa. C.S. §9718.2 Sentences for sex offenses Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

Current conviction of a Megan’s Law offense and previously convicted of Megan’s Law offense or equivalent

25 years confinement / maximum double minimum

Current conviction of a Megan’s Law offense and previously convicted of 2 or more Megan’s Law offenses or equivalent.

Life imprisonment

42 Pa. C.S. §9718.3 Sentences for failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

1st offense / subject to 42 §9795.1(a) violated 18 §4915(a)(1) or (2) 2 years violated 18 §4915(a)(3) 3 years 1st offense / subject to 42 §9795.1(b) violated 18 §4915(a)(1) or (2) 3 years violated 18 §4915(a)(3) 5 years 2nd offense / subject to 42 §9795.1 violated 18 §4915(a)(1) or (2) 5 years 2nd + offense / subject to 42 §9795.1 violated 18 §4915(a)(3) 7 years

42 Pa. C.S. §9719 Sentences for offenses committed while impersonating a law enforcement officer


42 Pa. C.S. §9719.1; 18-2702.1

Assault of law enforcement officer in the first degree (discharging firearm)

20 years imprisonment No notice required

104 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng




35 P.S. §780-113(k) Manufacture of amphetamines, methamphetamine, or phenylacetone, & phenyl-2-proponone

2 years total confinement No notice required

18 Pa.C.S. §7508 35 P.S. §780-13(a)(14), (30) & (37)

Drug trafficking sentencing and penalties Notice required prior to sentencing / Proof required at sentencing

Marijuana

2 lbs. to < 10 lbs. or 10 to < 21 live plants

1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 2 years

10 lbs. to < 50 lbs. or 21 to 51 live plants

1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 4 years

50 lbs. or more or 51 live plants or more

1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 5 years

Heroin

1 gram to < 5 grams 1st conviction: 2 years subsequent: 3 years

5 grams to < 50 grams 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years

50 grams or more 1st conviction: 5 years subsequent: 7 years

Narcotics of Schedule I or II


10 grams to < 100 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years


Cocaine

2 grams to < 10 grams 1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 3 years

10 grams < 100 grams 1st conviction: 3 years subsequent: 5 years


Methamphetamine / Phencyclidine




Amphetamine

5 grams or more 1st conviction: 2.5 years subsequent: 5 years

Methaqualone

50 tablets to < 200 tablets or 25 grams to < 100 grams

1st conviction: 1 year subsequent: 3 years

200 tablets or more or > 100 grams

1st conviction: 2.5 years subsequent: 5 years

MDMA

15 grams to < 30 grams 1st conviction: 5 year maximum subsequent: 10 year maximum

30 grams to < 300 grams 1st conviction: 10 year maximum subsequent: 20 year maximum

300 grams or more 1st conviction: 15 year maximum subsequent: 30 year maximum


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

RelevantTitle/Section Description

MandatoryMinimum Sentence

Prosecutorial NoticeRequirement

75 Pa. C.S. §1543(b) Driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked, DUI-related

60 days, unless imbibing 1st offense: 90 days 2nd offense: 6 months 3rd+ offense: 2 years

No notice required

75 Pa. C.S. §3735 Homicide by vehicle while DUI 3 years Consecutive 3 years for each victim

No notice required

75 Pa. C.S. §3742 Accidents involving death or personal injury; leaving scene of accident No notice required

Victim suffers SBI 90 days

Victim dies 1 year imprisonment

75 Pa. C.S. §3802 Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance. No notice required

(a)(1) incapable of driving safely or (a)(2) BAC .08 - < .10

1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd+ conviction: 10 days

(a)(1) incapable of driving safely involving accident, or (b) BAC .10 - <.16, or (e) minor, or (f) commercial/school vehicle

1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction : 1 year

(a)(1) incapable of driving safely involving refused testing, or (c) BAC .16 or greater, (d) controlled substances

1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year

75 Pa. C.S. §3808 Illegally operating motor vehicle not equipped with ignition lock.

90 days No notice required

30 Pa. C.S. §5502 Operating watercraft under influence of alcohol or controlled substance No notice required

(a)(1) incapable safe operation 1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd+ conviction: 10 days

(a)(1) refuse testing 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year

(a)(1) accident 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction : 1 year

(a)(2) BAC .08 - < .10 1st conviction: 6 months probation 2nd conviction: 5 days 3rd + conviction: 10 days

(a.1) BAC .10 - < .16 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction: 1 year

(a.2) BAC .16+ 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year

(a.3) controlled substance 1st conviction: 72 hours 2nd conviction: 90 days 3rd+ conviction: 1 year

(a.4) under 21 years of age 1st conviction: 48 hours 2nd conviction: 30 days 3rd conviction: 90 days 4th+ conviction : 1 year

30 Pa. C.S. §5502.1 Homicide by watercraft while operating under the influence

3 years imprisonment No notice required

106 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX E: 6TH EDITION, REVISED GUIDELINE MATRIX

§303.16 Basic Sentencing Matrix 6th Edition, Revised (12/05/2008)

0 1 2 3 4 5 RFEL REVOCMurder 3

14 Inchoate Murder/SBI 72-SL 84-SL 96-SL 120-SL 168-SL 192-SL 204-SL SL ~/- 12Rape (child <13 years)

Inchoate Murder/no SBI13 Weapons (mass destr./injury) 60-78 66-84 72-90 78-96 84-102 96-114 108-126 240 +/- 12

PWID Cocaine, etc. (>1,000 gms)

LEVEL Rape5 12 IDSI 48-66 54-72 60-78 66-84 72-90 84-102 96-114 120 +/- 12

Robbery (SBI)

State Agg Asslt (SBI)Incar 11 Voluntary Manslaughter 36-54 42-60 48-66 54-72 60-78 72-90 84-102 120 +/- 12

Sexual Assault BCPWID Cocaine,etc.(100-1,000 gms)

Kidnapping10 Agg. Indecent. Asslt

Agg Asslt (att. SBI) 22-36 30-42 36-48 42-54 48-60 60-72 72-84 120 +/- 12Arson (person inside) BC BC BCHom. by veh.(DUI & work zone)PWIDCocaine,etc.(50-<100 gms)

Sexual exploitation of children9 Robbery (F1/F2) 12-24 18-30 24-36 30-42 36-48 48-60 60-72 120 +/- 12

Burglary (home/person) BC BC BC BC BCArson (no person inside)

Agg Asslt (BI w/DW)LEVEL 8 Theft (firearm)

4 [F1] Identity theft (60 yrs., 3rd off.) 9-16 12-18 15-21 18-24 21-27 27-33 40-52 NA +/- 9State Hom. by veh.(DUI or work zone) BC BC BC BC BC BCIncar/ Theft (>$100,000)

RIP trade PWID Cocaine,etc. (10-<50 gms)Robbery (inflicts/threatens BI)

LEVEL 7 Burglary (home/ no person)3 [F2] Statutory Sexual Assault 6-14 9-16 12-18 15-21 18-24 24-30 35-45 NA +/- 6

State/ Theft (>$50,000-$100,000) BC BC BC BC BC BC BCCnty Identity theft (3rd off.)Incar PWID Cocaine,etc.(2.5-<10 gms)

RIP trade Agg Asslt (physical menace)6 Hom. by vehicle

Burglary (not home/person) 3-12 6-14 9-16 12-18 15-21 21-27 27-40 NA +/- 6Theft (>$25,000-$50,000) BC BC BC BC BC BC BCArson (property)PWID Cocaine,etc.(<2.5 gms)

Burglary (not home/no person)

AGG/MITExample OffensesOGSLevelPrior Record Score

5 Theft (>$2000-$25,000) RS-9 1-12 3-14 6-16 9-16 12-18 24-36 NA +/- 3LEVEL [F3] DUI (M1) BC BC BC BC BC BC

2 PWID (1-<10 lb of marij)

Cnty Indecent assaultIncar 4 Forgery (money, stocks) RS-3 RS-9 RS-<12 3-14 6-16 9-16 21-30 NA +/- 3RIP Weapon on school property BC BC BC BCRS Crim Trespass (breaks in)

Simple Assault3 Theft ($200-$2000) RS-1 RS-6 RS-9 RS-<12 3-14 6-16 12-18 NA +/- 3

[M1] DUI (M2) BC BC BCSimple Possession

Theft ($50-<$200)LEVEL 2 Retail Theft (1st ,2nd ) RS RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-6 1-9 6- <12 NA +/- 3

1 [M2] Bad Checks ($500-<$1,000)

Most Misd. 3's;Theft (<$50)RS 1 DUI (M) RS RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RS-6 3-6 NA +/- 3

[M3] Poss. Small Amount Marij.

BC = RIP =

CNTY = RS =

INCAR = SBI =

PWID = SL =

REVOC =~ =

RFEL = < ; > =

Note: 6th Edition, Revised Matrix is the same as the 6th Edition Matrix

5. Statutory classification (e.g., F1, F2, etc.) in brackets reflectthe omnibus OGS assignment for the given grade.

Key: Level 1=Purple, Level 2=White, Level 3=Blue, Level 4=Yellow, Level 5=Green, Agg/Mit=Orange

county

boot camp

no recommendation (aggravated sentence would exceed statutory limit)

restrictive intermediate punishments

restorative sanctions

1. Yellow (Level 4) and Blue (Level 3) shaded areas of the matrix indicate restrictive intermediate punishments may be imposed as a substitute for incarceration.2. When restrictive intermediate punishments are appropriate, the duration of the restrictive intermediate punishment program shall not exceed the guideline ranges.

3. When the range is RS through a number of months (e.g. RS-6), RIP may be appropriate.

4. All numbers in sentence recommendations suggest months of minimum confinement pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 9755(b) and 9756(b).

serious bodily injury

statutory limit (longest minimum sentence)

less than; greater thanrepeat felony 1 and felony 2 offender category

repeat violent offender category

possession with intent to deliver

incarceration


Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX F: ABBREVIATIONS

This is a list of abbreviations used throughout the Annual Report. For official definitions, please see the Glossary.

% Percentage - Zero or None AOPC The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts Avg Average BAC Blood alcohol content BI Bodily injury CIP County Intermediate Punishment CLE Continuing legal education DCSI Drug control system improvements DOC PA Department of Corrections DUI Driving under the influence F1-F3 Felony 1, Felony 2, Felony 3 F Unclassified Felony GL Guidelines IDSI Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse Incar Incarceration IP Intermediate punishment M1-M3 Misdemeanor 1, Misdemeanor 2, Misdemeanor 3 M Unclassified Misdemeanor Max Maximum sentence Meth Methamphetamine Min Minimum sentence NCHIP National criminal history improvement program Non-Neg Non-negotiated plea Num Number OGS Offense Gravity Score PBPP PA Board of Probation and Parole PCCD PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency PCS PA Commission on Sentencing PRS Prior Record Score PSI Pre-sentence investigation REVOC Repeat violent offender category RFEL Repeat Felony 1/Felony 2 Offender Category RIP Restrictive Intermediate Punishment RIP/D&A Restrictive Intermediate Punishment/ Drug and alcohol treatment RRRI Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive RS Restorative sanctions SBI Serious bodily injury SIP State Intermediate Punishment SGS Web Sentencing Guideline Software/Web application SOAB Sex Offender Assessment Board

108 Appendices

Penn

sylv

ania

Com

mis

sion

on

Sent

enci

ng

APPENDIX G: PENNSYLVANIA COUNTYCLASSIFICATION, 2009

Elk

Tioga

Erie

York

Potte

r

Centr

e

Berks

Brad

ford

Butle

r

Lyco

ming

Pike

Clint

on

Bedfo

rd

Warre

n

Clea

rfield

McKe

an

Blair

Craw

ford

Indian

a

Luze

rne

Some

rset

Wayne

Faye

tte

Perry

Bucks

Lanc

aster

Merce

r

Fran

klin

Ches

ter

Clari

on

Schu

ylkill

Monro

e

Cambria

Vena

ngo

Huntingdon

Gree

neAlleg

heny

Adam

s

Wash

ington

Jefferson

Westm

orelan

d

Mifflin

Fulton

Fores

t

Dauphin

Arms

trong

Beaver

Susq

ueha

nna

Sulliv

an

Union

Junia

ta

Carbo

n

Columbia

Lehig

h

Snyd

er

Cumb

erlan

d

Wyo

ming

Camero

n

Leba

non

Montgo

mery

Lawr

ence

Lackawanna

North

ampto

nNo

rthum

berla

nd

Delaw

are

Monto

ur

Phila

delph

ia

Penn

sylva

nia C

ount

y Clas

sifica

tion,

2009

Sourc

e: C

ounty

Com

miss

ioner

Asso

ciatio

n of P

enns

ylvan

ia

Coun

ty Cl

ass

1st C

lass (

Phila

delph

ia)

2nd C

lass (

Alleg

hney

)

2A C

lass (

3 Cou

nties

)

3rd C

lass (

11 C

ounti

es)

4th C

lass (

7 Cou

nties

)

5th C

lass (

9 Cou

nties

)

6th C

lass (

24 C

ounti

es)

7th C

lass (

5 Cou

nties

)

8th C

lass (

6 Cou

nties

)


Location

009 Brumbaugh HallThe Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

408 Forum BuildingCapitol Complex

Harrisburg, PA 17120

PO Box 1200State College, PA

16804-1200

PO Box 1045Harrisburg, PA

17108-1045

Web: http://pasentencing.us

SGS Web Help Desk: 814-867-1243 (statewide)

Sentencing Assistance / Questions814-863-5204 (Western Region) or

717-772-4122 (Eastern Region)

Mailing Address

814-863-2797 717-772-3776Telephone

814-863-2129 717-772-8892Fax

sentencing in pennsylvania -

Documents