HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0000089-2009
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
:
RONALD RAY RICHARDSON, JR.: CP-21-CR-0089-2009
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., December 28, 2010:--
On June 17, 2010, the defendant appeared in open court together with
counsel and tendered a plea of guilty to count 1, Unlawful Delivery, Manufacture,
Possession with Intent to Deliver a Schedule I Controlled Substance in full
satisfaction of all other charges. At that time, the Assistant District Attorney
informed the court that the defendant would be applying for the the Cumberland
County Treatment Court Program. As the Treatment Court Judge, we conducted
a brief colloquy with the defendant, in which he was informed that the Treatment
Court team would review his case and determine if he was acceptable for
1
Treatment Court.
The defendant was approved for Treatment Court; however, he
determined that he would not be able to participate because of transportation
2
issues. Prior to imposing sentence, the court noted the defendant’s
transportation problem with respect to Treatment Court and inquired as to
1
See the brief transcript of June 17, 2010 “In Re: Defendant Pleads Guilty.”
2
Transcript of September 7, 2010 “In Re: Sentence” at 2-3. It was the court’s understanding, through
Treatment Court team discussions, that the defendant would have difficulty traveling to the courthouse,
located in the center of the county, for court sessions and drug testing because he resides at the western
edge of the county and has employment even further away.
CP-21-CR-0089-2009
whether he would have a similar transportation problem with respect to work
3
release if a county sentence was imposed. After a brief discussion on
transportation and defendant’s efforts to address his substance abuse problems,
the court imposed a sentence of ten to 23 months in the Cumberland County
Prison, with the defendant eligible for work release.
The basis for the appeal, as expressed in the defendant’s revised concise
statement of errors, is as follows:
It was improper for Judge Masland to sentence
4
Defendant after the Defendant had attended a Treatment
Court session presided over by Judge Masland and the
Defendant thereafter declined to apply for the Treatment
Court process. Defendant’s refusal of the Treatment Court
program was an improper consideration at sentencing.
Defendant is not only mistaken in his belief, but, as the record reflects, his
reasoning is diametrically opposed to the facts. Defendant’s decision to
turndown treatment court was not held against him. In fact, his consideration of
treatment court coupled with his attendance at NA and AA meetings between the
time of his plea and sentencing, ultimately, garnered him a shorter sentence than
5
might have been imposed. We did not impose a minimum sentence at the top of
the standard range (16 months), which the offense and his prior record score of 5
would have justified. Rather, we deviated slightly from our mid-range default and
imposed a minimum of only 10 months.
It would appear from his pro se filings that the defendant is miffed with
3
Id. at 4-5.
4
Applicants to Treatment Court are invited to observe a session of court to determine if they wish to enter
into this voluntary program. There is no official interaction between the court and such visiting applicants.
In fact, if defendant attended, the court does not recall his presence.
5
Id. at 5-6.
-2-
CP-21-CR-0089-2009
counsel, claiming he was led to believe that he would receive a sentence in the
mitigated range. Given defendant’s prior record, we find it hard to imagine that
the defendant is suffering from anything other than wishful thinking. But, that is
an issue for another day.
In sum, if a treatment court participant is terminated from the program and
requests to be sentenced by another judge, we will gladly oblige to avoid any
perception of bias. In defendant’s case there was no reason for recrimination
even if we were ever inclined to be vindictive – he had not failed out of, broken
faith with or disgraced the program. To the contrary, he impressed us with his
desire to address his addiction and start anew – he just did not impress us as
6
much as he had hoped.
Therefore, we suggest that the sentence appealed from was fairly and
property entered.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire
For Defendant
:saa
6
Id. at 7.
-3-