HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0609-2006
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
STEPHEN P. THOMPSON
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0609 - 2006
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., January
, 2007
On October 16, 2006 after a bench trial we found the defendant guilty of unlawful
possession with intent to deliver cocaine. On November 28, 2007 after receipt of a
sentencing report, we sentenced him to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional
facility for not less than 7 nor more than 15 years. 1 We made our sentence concurrent to
a 7 to 10 year sentence he was then serving for a similar offense in Dauphin County.2
The Commonwealth has filed this timely appeal in which it contends that we
erred in failing to make our sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed by the Dauphin
County court.3 In its concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, it alleges that
we "overlooked a number of factors that would mandate consecutive sentences.,,4
However, at the time of sentence the Assistant District Attorney stated that the
Commonwealth's "only position is we ask this run ( consecutive) to the other seven year
1 Because of the amount of cocaine involved seven years was the mandatory minimum sentence we could
impose. However, because of the defendant's prior record, it was also a standard range sentence.
2 He had approximately 6 years remaining before he would be eligible for parole on the Dauphin County
charge.
3 The defendant has also filed an appeal in which he alleges that errors were made by the Suppression
Court. The Honorable Merle L. Ebert, Jr. will address those issues in a separate opinion.
4 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0609 - 2006
sentence he's currently serving. . . because he was out on bail on . . . that sentence when
he committed this, new drug offense."s
"The general rule in Pennsylvania is that in imposing a sentence the court has
discretion to determine whether to make it concurrent with or consecutive to other
sentences then being imposed or other sentence previously imposed." Commonwealth v.
Graham, 541 Pa. 173, 184,661 A.2d 1367, 1373 (1995). In the instant case we were well
aware of the Commonwealth's position and gave it due consideration. However, we
were satisfied that a concurrent sentence, albeit with a longer maximum, was appropriate.
The crime was non-violent in nature. More importantly, the defendant was 53 years old
at the time our sentence was imposed. He will be almost sixty (60) years old before he
becomes eligible for parole on our sentence. He will be sixty-eight (68) years old by the
time the maximum expires. As we stated at the time of sentencing:
These are mandatory or standard range sentences as the case may be. We
have imposed concurrent sentences because we're satisfied that Mr.
Thompson should be given the opportunity to make something out of his
life when his time is up and we are satisfied that the 15 year tail as it were
will keep him on the straight and narrow.6
DATE
Edward E. Guido, 1.
Christin Mehrtens-Carlin, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire
F or the Defendant
:sld
5 Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings, November 28,2006, p. 2.
6 Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings, November 28,2006, p.4.
1