No statutes or acts will be found at this website.
The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.
• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.
The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.
The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing hereby publishes for public comment a working draft of proposals developed during a comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines. The working draft is set forth in Annex A.
The 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines, adopted by the Commission on September 13, 2012, took effect December 28, 2012. Since 2012, the Commission adopted six amendments and one supplement to the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines:
• Amendment 1, adopted June 6, 2013, effective September 27, 2013.
• Amendment 2, adopted June 5, 2014, effective September 26, 2014.
• Amendment 3, adopted June 4, 2015, effective September 25, 2015.
• Amendment 4, adopted June 1, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.
◦ Supplement to Amendment 4, adopted December 14, 2017, effective June 1, 2018.
• Amendment 5, adopted June 13, 2019, effective January 1, 2020.
• Amendment 6, adopted September 10, 2020, effective January 1, 2021.
During the past decade, in addition to adopting the 7th Edition Sentencing Guidelines and amendments to address immediate legislative mandates and implementation issues, the Commission also was engaged in a forward-looking comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines. As described in greater detail in the Commentary, the comprehensive review provided an opportunity to study current practices and research best practices; to consider approaches to streamline, automate, and update the sentencing guidelines; to promote greater certainty in sentencing and more efficient use of resources and programs; and to harmonize the sentencing guidelines with amended statutes and with other Commission mandates, including the sentence risk assessment instrument, re-sentencing guidelines, and with the pending parole guidelines and recommitment ranges.
A working draft of proposals developed through this comprehensive review is found in Annex A. These proposals, if pursued by the Commission, would restructure the sentencing guidelines by providing more targeted sentence recommendations, redirect the primary focus of the recommendations on factors associated with the conviction offense, and reduce the impact of the prior record. The development of these proposals, while informed by the experiences gained from four decades of sentencing guidelines, were advanced through four initiatives:
Given the substantial changes to the sentencing guidelines suggested during this comprehensive review, the Commission approved for publication a working draft of proposals, and the scheduling of hearings, to receive public comment before moving forward with consideration of any revisions to the sentencing guidelines.
In accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 2155, the Commission shall publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin this working draft and hold public hearings not earlier than 30 days and not later than 60 days thereafter to afford an opportunity for the following persons and organizations to testify:
• Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association
• Chiefs of Police Associations
• Fraternal Order of Police
• Public Defenders Organization
• Law School faculty members
• Pennsylvania Parole Board
• Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
• Pennsylvania Bar Association
• Pennsylvania Wardens Association
• Pennsylvania Association on Probation, Parole and Corrections
• Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
• Any other interested person or organization
The Commission has scheduled the following hearings to receive public comment. The hearings will provide opportunities to receive testimony on-site at hearing locations consistent with COVID-19 safeguards or by Zoom Webinar:
Hearing I.
Date:
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Time:
2:00 p.m.
On-site Location:
Bucks County Justice Center, Courtroom 410 100 North Main Street, Doylestown, PA
Hearing II.
Date:
Thursday, February 24, 2022
Time:
10:00 a.m.
On-site Location:
Philadelphia City Hall, Courtroom 654 1400 JFK Blvd. Philadelphia, PA
Hearing III.
Date:
Monday, February 28, 2022
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Zoom Webinar:
https://bit.ly/PCS2022Feb28PubHrng Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (registration open to the public; testimony limited to incarcerated individuals )
Hearing IV.
Date:
Wednesday, March 2, 2022
Time:
2:00 p.m.
On-site location:
Duquesne University School of Law, 203 Hanley Hall 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
Hearing V.
Date:
Friday, March 4, 2022
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Zoom Webinar:
https://bit.ly/PCS2022March4PubHrng Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (registration and testimony open to the public)
Hearing VI.
Date:
Wednesday, March 9, 2022
Time:
2:00 p.m.
Zoom Webinar:
https://bit.ly/PCS2022March9PubHrng (registration and testimony open to the public)
On-site Location:
Pennsylvania Capitol Complex 523 Irvis Building, Harrisburg, PA
Those wishing to attend or testify at a Zoom Webinar public hearing may register at the link provided. Those wishing to testify in person may register by contacting the Commission (Cathy Dittman—814-863-5729 or cwd2@psu.edu).
Persons or organizations wishing to testify in-person or via Zoom Webinar are asked to register at least five business days prior to the hearing, and to provide an electronic copy of any testimony. Written comments from persons or organizations not wishing to testify should be received by the Commission at least five business days before the last-scheduled public hearing. Forward all testimony and documents to Cathy Dittman (cwd2@ psu.edu).
REPRESENTATIVE TODD STEPHENS,
Chair
Commentary on Annex A
This Commentary provides background on the comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines which served as the basis for developing a working draft of proposals. The comprehensive review provided an opportunity to study current practices and research best practices; to consider approaches to streamline, automate, and update the sentencing guidelines; to promote greater certainty in sentencing and more efficient use of resources and programs; and to harmonize the sentencing guidelines with amended statutes and with other Commission mandates, including the sentence risk assessment instrument, re-sentencing guidelines, and with the pending parole guidelines and recommitment ranges.
A working draft of proposals developed through this comprehensive review is found in Annex A. These proposals, if pursued by the Commission, would restructure the sentencing guidelines by providing more targeted sentence recommendations, redirect the primary focus of the recommendations on factors associated with the conviction offense, and reduce the impact of the prior record. The development of these proposals, while informed by the experiences gained from four decades of sentencing guidelines, were advanced through four initiatives:
Given the substantial changes to the sentencing guidelines suggested during this comprehensive review, the Commission approved the publication of a working draft of recommendations received, and the scheduling of hearings, to receive public comment before moving forward with consideration of any revisions.
Background on the Comprehensive Review
Since the implementation of the first sentencing guidelines in 1982, the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing has adopted eighteen changes (i.e., new editions, amendments, revisions, and supplements), the most recent of which incorporate guidelines for probation, for the use of restrictive conditions (i.e., county intermediate punishment programs), and for fines and community service; fourteen legislatively-mandated sentencing enhancements; and recommendations to identify eligible and appropriate candidates for programs at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. During the same period, the Commission adopted and implemented a sentence risk assessment instrument and guidelines for resentencing following revocation of probation, proposed a model pretrial risk assessment tool related to domestic violence, and held public hearings on proposed guidelines for parole and recommitment ranges to be considered following revocation of parole.
While a comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines is a necessary response to increasing legislative mandates and clarifying court decisions, the rebuilding of the sentencing guidelines serves as a vehicle to reform and improve Pennsylvania's criminal justice system. This process advances the goals of the Commonwealth's Justice Reinvestment Initiatives (JRI-I and JRI-II), while giving renewed focus to concerns about racial justice and the over-reliance on incarceration and long periods of community supervision. As noted previously, four independent initiatives have been critical to this review, and in the development of proposals for consideration in the rebuilding of the sentencing guidelines:
• Strategic Planning Work Group (SPWG) (2014—2016)—The Commission established the Strategic Planning Work Group (SPWG) in 2014, involving a representative statewide group of 35 criminal justice stakeholders to take a fresh look at the sentencing guidelines. The group met for seventeen meetings over the course of almost two years to conduct a full external review of Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. The goals of the review were to streamline and simplify the guidelines, to better incorporate the mandated sentencing enhancements, to promote greater certainty in sentences and more efficient use of correctional programs.
Specific SPWG recommendations included: recalibration and expansion of the number of offense gravity score categories (from 14 to 48) in order to provide more targeted recommendations and more uniform and proportional increases; reduction in the impact of prior record score through expanded lapsing provisions and simplified/automated consideration of previous convictions; use of adjustments to offense gravity score assignments to con-sistently address offense-based and offender-based factors; and modification of offense gravity score assignments to address mandated enhancements.
• Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS) (2001—2017)—The Model Penal Code served as the basis for Pennsylvania's 1973 recodification of the Crimes Code (Act 334 of 1972). The American Law Institute (ALI) initiated a project in 2001 to rewrite the sentencing and corrections provisions of the Model Penal Code. In 2017, the ALI approved the new Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS). As noted by Professor Kevin R. Reitz, MPCS Reporter, the new MPCS is the first official amendment to any section of the original Model Penal Code since it was adopted in 1962, and provides an institutional framework for all major forms of punishment. It includes, for the first time, standards for sentencing commissions and sentencing guidelines, and suggests sentencing procedures that promote greater fairness and transparency.
Many of the MPCS recommendations address limits on punishment and elimination of disproportionate sentence severity, while focusing on the individualization of sentences and the prioritization of the use of correctional resources to offenders who present the greatest risk and highest needs. Specific provisions contained in the MPCS related to sentencing guidelines include limits on the use of criminal history, standards for addressing multiple sentences, consideration of offender treatment needs and risk of reoffending, and reiterates the recommendation that a pre-sentence investigation be ordered whenever a defendant has been convicted of a felony and the court is considering a sentence in excess of the time served while awaiting conviction and sentencing.
• Justice Reinvestment II (JRI-II) (2016—2019)—A second statewide Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI-II) Working Group was assembled in 2016, with members appointed by the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the leaders of the General Assembly. The goal of JRI-II was to develop evidence-based recommendations to reform and improve operations at the front-end of Pennsylvania's criminal justice system. The working group presented consensus recommendations in December of 2018, and related legislation was enacted in November of 2019.
The working group recommended that the Commission: revise the prior record scoring to reflect risk to offend; adjust minimum ranges incrementally, to support further reinvestments in recidivism reducing interventions; guide the use of restrictive conditions of probation, terms of probation, use of split sentences, and maximum sentences; create interactive guideline information to support decisions with risk, recidivism, and cost information; and continue to analyze the cost and impact of restoring mandatory minimum sentences.
Specific to the sentencing guidelines, the legislation enacted by the General Assembly (Acts 114 and 115 of 2019) provided for the modification of factors to be considered in adopting the guidelines; adjustments to criminal history to better address risk to reoffend and substantial risk to public safety; and greater targeting of the use of specific sentencing options, including new guidelines to address the intensity and duration of probation, including the use of CIP programs as restrictive conditions of probation; and provided that the sentence risk assessment instrument could be used to help determine the intensity of intervention, use of restrictive conditions, and duration of supervision.
• Academic Review Panel (ARP) (2020-2021)—As the last phase of the comprehensive review, the Commission convened an Academic Review Panel, chaired by Commission Member Judge Leon Tucker, comprising legal and social science faculty and practitioners who are subject matter experts in the areas of sentencing and corrections, guidelines, juvenile and criminal justice policy, social justice, and race and ethnicity. The panel included Villanova Law Professor Steven L. Chanenson, former Commission Chair and SPWG Chair; and Minnesota Law Professor Kevin R. Reitz, MPCS Reporter. Commission staff facilitated 11 meetings between November 2020 and May 2021 for the purpose of discussing systemic changes needed to address racial disparity, to incorporate evidence-based practices, and to consider approaches taken by other jurisdictions. The panel reviewed the proposals advanced by the SPWG and the JRI-II working group, studied Commission data, and considered the MPCS sentencing guidelines provisions, especially as related to the use of criminal history.
The panel supported recommendations that give primary consideration in the sentencing guidelines to the conviction offense and factors related to that offense, while decreasing the impact of the prior record score due to its role as a secondary factor at sentencing. The Commission's enabling legislation and the MPCS provisions related to purposes of sentencing and sentencing guidelines require sentence recommendation that address the gravity of the offense, the harm done to crime victims, and the blameworthiness of the offender. To the degree these factors are addressed through the sentence recommendation for the conviction offense, the MPCS suggests limits on additional punishment for blameworthiness linked to the criminal history, as the offender has already been punished for prior convictions. The MPCS further cautions that the use of criminal history to assess an offender's risk of reoffending may over-predict those risks. And, consistent with the analysis of Commission data, the MPCS warns of disparate impacts on racial or ethnic minorities, or other disadvantaged groups, when increases in sentence recommendations are associated with higher prior record scores.
Specific prior record score recommendations include a recalculation of prior record score based on categories of offenses rather than point values; the establishment of new prior record score categories (0, Low, Medium, High) to better distinguish seriousness of criminal history and risk of re-offense; the expansion of the juvenile lapsing policy linked to the age of the offender; and the addition of an adult lapsing policy to address stale records. The proposed prior record score categories include a 'true zero' category for those with no previous convictions or with lapsed adjudications or convictions, while retaining RFEL and REVOC as part of the High category.
Working Draft of Proposals
Proposals related to § 303.1—Sentencing guidelines standards
Proposed addition of preliminary provisions that provide the authorization for the adoption of guidelines for sentencing, guidelines for probation and for restrictive conditions, and guidelines for fines; addition of definitions; and addition of statutory factors the Commission shall address when adopting guidelines for sentencing, guidelines for probation and restrictive conditions, and guidelines for fines.
Proposed modification of current provisions to provide more consistent practices in each county for the preparation of guideline sentence forms and the consideration of the sentence recommendations prior to sentencing. Best practices include the use of an administrative order or local rule to prescribe the process for preparation of the guideline sentence forms using the JNET-based SGS Web application, and consideration by the court and the parties of the sentence recommendations prior to sentencing. The involvement of the prosecutor is critical in the preparation of guideline sentence forms, as the prosecutor has the burden of proving sentencing factors used to determine the offense gravity score assignment, adjustments or enhancements, and prior record score, and has agreed to any provisions of a negotiated plea. Providing SGS Web-generated guideline sentence forms to all parties prior to sentencing allows for adequate review of the accuracy of the information and ensures consideration of the sentence recommendations and the related sentence risk assessment information.
Proposed modification of current provisions to provide more consistent practices in each county for the reporting of all required sentencing information to the Commission through the JNET-based SGS Web application no later than 30 days after sentencing. Best practices include the use of an administrative order or local rule to prescribe the process for the submission of completed guideline sentence forms and information on the sentence imposed for each conviction offense. The involvement of the adult probation and parole department is critical in the full reporting of sentences to the Commission, as the adult probation and parole department is responsible for supervising the majority of cases sentenced by the court, whether through sentences to probation or other restorative sanctions, or upon release from a county correctional facility. Additionally, the state funding plan for county adult probation and parole departments and the CIP funding take into consideration a county's full submission of data to the Commission and certification of compliance with the sentencing guidelines.
Proposals related to § 303.2—Procedure for determining the guideline sentence
Proposed modification to note consideration of any offense gravity score modifications due to offense adjustments or sentencing factor adjustments as described in § 303.3, and to reference incorporation of the sentence risk assessment instrument as part of the preparation of the sentencing guidelines.
Proposals related to § 303.3—Offense gravity score (general)
Proposed expansion of the number of offense gravity scores from the current 15 categories (14 general categories and one category for Murder 1 and Murder 2) to the proposed 42 categories (36 general categories and six Murder 1 and Murder 2 categories), with reassignment of omnibus offense gravity scores. This proposal, first suggested by the SPWG to include 48 categories, is intended to provide more targeted and consistent sentence recommendations and to allow modifications to the offense gravity score (e.g., step-up or step-down) to automate and reflect adjustments for sentencing factors and enhancements. Details of the procedure used to reassign offense gravity scores is discussed in § 303.15 (relating to offense listing).
Proposed modification of the offense gravity score assignments address offense adjustments (e.g., inchoate, ethnic intimidation, terrorism, ecoterrorism), sentencing factor adjustments (e.g., cooperation, course of conduct, role in offense), general enhancement provisions (e.g., deadly weapon, drug possession, criminal gang, domestic violence), and certain offense-specific enhancement provisions (e.g., human trafficking, arson offenses, sexual abuse of children). See Attachment 1.
Proposed offense adjustments decrease the offense gravity score assignments by one point for inchoate offenses and increase the offense gravity score assignments by two points for ethnic intimidation, terrorism, and ecoterrorism. Second or subsequent offenses for which the grade or statutory maximum are increased, including violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, are assigned higher offense gravity scores than those assigned to initial offenses. Higher offense gravity scores are also assigned for distribution of controlled substances to minors when the maximum penalty is doubled.
Proposed sentencing factor adjustments include decreasing the offense gravity score assignments based on cooperation and limited role in the offense; and increasing the offense gravity score assignments based on aggravated role in the offense or course of conduct, including temporal or offense pattern, and circumstances involving multiple victims, repeat victimization, or vulnerable victim.
Proposed general enhancements, which increase the offense gravity score assignments by one or more points, include possession or use of a deadly weapon and drug trafficking in a school zone and/or to minors, replacing the separate matrices of the current sentencing guidelines. The offense gravity score is proposed to increase by two steps when the court determines an offender participated in a criminal gang and for specified offenses involving domestic violence. For most offense-specific enhancements, the offense gravity score assignments proposed in § 303.15 have been increased to reflect consideration of the enhancement factor. In certain circumstances, additional enhancements apply.
This proposed approach to offense gravity score assignments, adjustments, and enhancements as proposed by the SPWG is intended to provide greater consistency and certainty in sentencing when common aggravating and mitigating factors are determined by the court to be present. Additionally, this and related proposals allow for streamlining and automating the application of numerous legislatively mandated sentence enhancements.
Proposals related to § 303.4—Prior record score (categories)
Proposed redesign of the prior record score categories and the procedures for determining the prior record score. The current eight prior record score categories (0—5, RFEL, REVOC) are replaced with four categories (0, Low, Medium, High). This proposal by the ARP creates categories that better distinguish criminal history and better reflect differences in risk to reoffend based on the seriousness and number of previous adjudications and convictions.
The proposed 0 category is limited to those with no prior convictions, or those with an extended period of law-abiding behavior following a conviction (e.g., Clean Slate). The proposed Low category includes those with a single prior M1 adjudication or conviction, or with multiple prior M2 or lesser offenses; the Medium category includes those with a single prior felony adjudication or conviction, or with multiple prior F3 or lesser offenses; and the High category including those with two or more prior F1 or F2 adjudications or convictions (RFEL), or with two or more prior adjudications or convictions for crimes of violence (REVOC).
This proposed approach to the prior record score determination is consistent with the JRI-II recommendation that the primary focus be on risk to reoffend, while retaining some consideration of blameworthiness by distinguishing those with no prior convictions or with long periods of crime-free behavior from those with continuing criminal conduct. And consistent with the MPCS recommendations, the impact of criminal history is substantially reduced in the sentence recommendation, shifting the primary focus to the current conviction offense and reducing the racial disparity associated with higher prior record score categories. See Attachment 2.
Proposals related to § 303.5—Prior record score (prior convictions)
Proposed addition of a lapsing provision for previous adult convictions. This was first recommended by the SPWG to address and standardize the common occurrence of mitigated sentences for stale prior records; the proposal was expanded and linked to provisions of Clean Slate by Drexel University law school students; the proposal was further refined by the ARP to include the elimination from the prior record score of any previous misdemeanor, ungraded felony, or F3 conviction upon successful completion of a 10-year crime-free period; elimination from the prior record score of any previous F1 or F2 conviction, unless specified as a crime of violence, upon completion of a 15-year crime-free period; and elimination from the prior record score of any previous conviction for a crime of violence upon successful completion of a 25-year crime-free period.
Proposals related to § 303.6—Prior record score (prior juvenile adjudications)
Proposed expansion of the existing lapsing provision for previous juvenile adjudications. The ARP closely examined the role of previous juvenile adjudications. The ARP noted research (e.g., brain development, age-crime curve, redemption and aging out of criminality), recent appellate court opinions, and the differences in purposes and procedural safeguards between the juvenile and adult justice systems, as support for a more limited consideration of previous juvenile adjudications in the prior record score. While previous juvenile adjudications only contribute to the prior record score in 6% of reported sentences, their impact on the sentence recommendation can be substantial.
The ARP proposed the retention of the policies that exclude consideration of previous juvenile adjudications for offenses committed prior to age 14 and for previous M2 and M3 juvenile adjudications; elimination from the prior record score of any previous juvenile adjudications for M1, F3 and ungraded felonies at age 21; elimination from the prior record score of any previous F1 or F2 juvenile adjudications at age 25, unless specified as a crime of violence; and elimination from the prior record score of any previous juvenile adjudication for a crime of violence upon successful completion of a 10-year crime-free period.
Proposals related to § 303.7—Prior record score (guideline points scoring)
Proposed replacement of the existing point scoring procedures with a new process, in which the first step involves the identification of the prior offense with the highest grade or statutory maximum, and the second step involves identification of prior offenses of the same grade or statutory maximum. This approach is intended to simplify and automate the preparation of the prior record score, and to better distinguish the seriousness of criminal history and the risk of re-offense.
Proposals related to § 303.8—Prior record score (miscellaneous)
Proposed modification to text related to excluded offenses, taking note of the new lapsing provisions proposed in § 303.5 and § 303.6.
Proposals related to § 303.9—Guideline sentence recommendations (general)
Proposed modification to text to address Murder 1 and Murder 2 recommendations and certain procedures related to enhancements and taking note of a single matrix replacing seven existing matrices.
Proposed modification to text to incorporate reference to the sentence risk assessment instrument, the recommendations related to obtaining additional information (RNR PSI) for consideration prior to sentencing, and reference to related MPCS provisions.
Proposed replacement of P1 and P2 with probation recommendations ranging from six months to 36 months in duration.
Proposed consideration of MPCS provisions related to recommendations or suggested limits of the use of concurrent and consecutive terms when imposing multiple sentences.
Proposals related to § 303.10—Guideline sentence recommendations (enhancements)
Proposed modifications to remove references to separate enhancement matrices and to the addition of months to sentence recommendations, and to add reference to the two procedures for applying enhancements: the assignment of an increased offense gravity score, particularly for offense-specific enhancements; and an increase of the assigned offense gravity score by one or more points, for both general enhancements and certain offense-specific enhancements.
Proposals related to § 303.11—Guideline sentence recommendations (sentencing levels)
Proposed modification of the existing five sentencing levels, which provide general classifications concerning the type of sentence, to seven sentencing levels, that more specifically target disposition and duration of sentences. This is consistent with the SPWG and JRI-II proposals to promote certainty in sentencing, evidence-based practices, and the efficient use of resources.
Proposed Level A targets the use of restorative sanctions other than probation, encouraging consideration of community service or fines as a sole sanction for relatively minor offenses. Level B targets the use of probation for durations ranging from six months to 36 months, with consideration of the use of restrictive conditions to address intensity of supervision. Level C targets confinement in a county facility and provides for a trade-off with restrictive conditions of probation as an alternative to confinement or consistent with a clinical assessment. Level D targets confinement in a state facility for most felony offenses. Level F targets confinement in a state facility for felonies with a statutory maximum of greater than 20 years. Level H targets sentences for Murder 1 and Murder 2 and incorporates applicable mandatory sentencing provisions.
Proposals related to § 303.12—Guideline sentence recommendations (sentencing programs)
No substantive proposals. This section was modified (7th Edition, Amendment 6) to include recently enacted legislation (Act 2019-115) and to describe correctional and sentencing programs. Modification to note the role of risk, needs, and responsivity to inform sentencing decisions.
Proposals related to § 303.13—Guideline sentence recommendations (aggravating and mitigating circumstances)
Proposed modification to disposition and duration of aggravated and mitigated ranges to correspond with sentencing levels.
Proposed Level A aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is 25 hours of community service. Level B aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is six months of probation or one month of restrictive conditions. Level C aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is two months of confinement in a county facility or the equivalent period of restrictive conditions of probation. Level D aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is four months of confinement in a county or state facility. Level E aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is six months of confinement in a state facility. Level F aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is 12 months of confinement in a state facility. Level H aggravated/mitigated adjustment to the standard range is 24 months of confinement in a state facility.
Proposed consideration of a common practice identified by the MPCS of providing a non-exclusive list of aggravating and mitigating reasons for consideration by the court.
Proposals related to § 303.14—Guideline sentence recommendations (economic sanctions)
Proposed modification to fines/community service guidelines to address the changes to the Basic Sentencing Matrix, including the addition of offense gravity score categories and reduction in the number of prior record score categories. Recommended hours of community service range from 25—50 hours (or comparable fine based on hourly wage) to 225—250 hours (or comparable fine based on hourly wage), with 25-hour increments.
Proposals related to § 303.15—Offense listing
Proposed offense gravity score assignments. See Attachment 3.
The standard range of the current offense gravity score serves as an anchor for the proposed reassignment, with the disposition and duration of the median sentence (based on an analysis of 2017—2019 sentencing data) used to refine the new assignment. This provides assignments that reflect the 'typical sentence for the typical offense.' Further modifications to the assignments promote uniformity and proportionality across offenses and address specified adjustments and enhancements.
Proposed changes to the drug offense categories combine several high-volume categories into a single category, due to the limited number of convictions reported and the ability of the court to depart from the guidelines due to substantially higher quantities. The proposals also increase the offense gravity score assignments when the statutory maximum is doubled (e.g., 35 P.S. § 780-114 and § 780-115).
Proposals related to § 303.16(a)—Basic Sentencing Matrix
Proposed Basic Sentencing Matrix. See Attachment 4.
Proposals related to § 303.16(b)—Sentencing Matrix for Offenders Convicted of 1st or 2nd Degree Murder
Proposed deletion. Incorporated into Basic Sentencing Matrix.
Proposals related to § 303.17—Deadly Weapon Enhancement Matrices
Proposed deletion. Addressed through modification to offense gravity score enhancement provisions (§ 303.3).
Proposals related to § 303.18—School and Youth Enhancement Matrices
Proposed deletion. Addressed through modifications to offense gravity score enhancement provisions (§ 303.3).
ATTACHMENT 1
Offense Adjustments
Description
Stautory Authority
Guidelines
Enhancement
Sentencing Factor
Inchoate offenses
—Criminal attempt
18 Pa.C.S. § 901
303.3(c)
-1 OGS
Reduction in OGS assigned to object offense
—Criminal solicitation
18 Pa.C.S. § 902
303.3(c)
-1 OGS
Reduction in OGS assigned to object offense
—Criminal conspiracy
18 Pa.C.S. § 903
303.3(c)
-1 OGS
Reduction in OGS assigned to object offense
Ethnic intimidation
18 Pa.C.S. § 2710
303.3(d)
+2 OGS
Increase in OGS assigned to object offense
Terrorism
18 Pa.C.S. § 2717
303.15
+2 OGS
Increase in OGS assigned to object offense
Ecoterrorism
18 Pa.C.S. § 3311
303.15
+2 OGS
Increase in OGS assigned to object offense
Sentencing Factor Adjustments
Description
Stautory Authority
Guidelines
Enhancement
Sentencing Factor
Cooperation
42 Pa.C.S. § 2154(b)(4)
(new)
0
no factor present
-1 OGS
accepts responsibility
-2 OGS
provides substantial assistance
Course of conduct
42 Pa.C.S. § 2154(b)(2)
(new)
+2 OGS
multiple victims, repeat victimization, or vulnerable victim
+1 OGS
temporal or offense pattern
0
no factor present
Role in offense
42 Pa.C.S. § 2154(b)(4)
(new)
+1 OGS
aggravated role
0
no factor present
-1 OGS
mitigated role
General Enhancement Provisions
Description
Stautory Authority
Guidelines
Enhancement
Sentencing Factor
Deadly weapon
42 Pa.C.S. § 2154(b)(3)
§ 303.10(a)
+3 OGS
deadly weapon used
+2 OGS
deadly weapon possessed
0
no factor present
School/youth drug possession
42 Pa.C.S. § 2154(b)(3)
§ 303.10(b)
+3 OGS
distribution to minor in school zone
+2 OGS
distribution to minor
+1 OGS
distribution in school zone
0
no factor present
Criminal gang
42 Pa.C.S. § 9720.4
§ 303.10(c)
+2 OGS
committed crime of violence or PWID in association with criminal gang
0
no factor present
Domestic violence
42 Pa.C.S. § 9720.8
§ 303.10(h)
+2 OGS
specified offense against family or household member
*
if witnessed by minor, recommend defendant be ordered to pay costs/fees associated with assessment/treatment of minor
0
no factor present
Offense-Specific Enhancement Provisions (In addition to these proposals, certain offense-specific enhancements are included in the OGS assignments at § 303.15, and designated as (E))
Description
Stautory Authority
Guidelines
Enhancement
Sentencing Factor
Human trafficking
42 Pa.C.S. § 3024
§ 303.10(g)
Enhancement of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3011, 3012
+2 OGS
sexual servitude
+2 OGS
minor <18 years of age
+2 OGS
minor <13 years of age
+2 OGS
kidnapping, rape, or IDSI in the course of the offense
*
add enhancement for each factor present unless included in OGS assignment; maximum increase is +8 OGS
0
no factor present
Arson offenses
42 Pa.C.S. § 9720.6
§ 303.10(f); § 303.10(i)(1)(ii)
Enhancement of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301
+2 OGS
more than three people in building (F1 offense)
+3 OGS
more than three people in building (<F1 offense)
+2 OGS
>$1 million in damage (F1 offense)
+3 OGS
>$1 million in damage (<F1 offense)
+2 OGS
incendiary device (F1 offense)
+3 OGS
incendiary device (<F1 offense)
*
add enhancement for each factor present unless included in OGS assignment; maximum increase for F1 offense is +6 OGS; maximum increase for <F1 offense is +9 OGS
0
no factor present
Sexual abuse of children
42 Pa.C.S. § 9720.5
§ 303.10(e); § 303.10(i)(1)(iv)
Enhancement of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312
+1 step
sexual or violent abuse depicted
+1 step
>50 - 200 images
+2 steps
>200 - 500 images
+3 steps
>500 images
*
add enhancement for each factor present unless included in OGS assignment; maximum increase is +4 steps.
**
beginning with OGS assignment in §303.15, increase OGS to next-listed assignment for each step: OGS 12; OGS 15; OGS 18; OGS 20; OGS 22; OGS 23; OGS 24; OGS 25; OGS 27.
0
no factor present
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Prior Record Score Procedure
A. Identify all offenses for which the defendant was adjudicated delinquent or convicted prior to the date of the current offense:
(1) Juvenile adjudications—consider the most serious offense for which the individual was adjudicated delinquent from each disposition that meets the following criteria:
a. Individual 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense.
b. There was an express finding by the juvenile court that the adjudication was for a felony or M1 offense (exclude consideration of all lesser offenses).
(2) Adult convictions—consider every offense for which the individual was convicted. For former Pennsylvania offenses and out-of-state offenses:
a. Determine the current equivalent Pennsylvania offense.
b. Identify the grade associated with the current equivalent offense.
B. Lapsing provisions. Remove the following offenses from consideration in the prior record score:
(1) Juvenile adjudications:
a. At 21 years of age, remove all offenses with the following grades: M1, F, F3.
b. At 25 years of age, remove all offenses with the following grades, unless designated as a violent offense: F2, F1.
c. Crime-free period. If the defendant has successfully completed a 10-year crime-free period since the last adjudication or conviction, remove the remaining juvenile adjudications.
(2) Adult convictions:
a. Crime-free period. If the defendant has successfully completed a 10-year crime-free period since the last conviction, remove all offenses with the following grades: M, M3, M2, M1, F, F3.
b. Crime-free period. If the defendant has successfully completed a 15-year crime-free period since the last conviction, remove all offenses with the following grades, unless designated as a crime of violence: F2, F1.
c. Crime-free period. If the defendant has successfully completed a 25-year crime-free period since the last conviction, remove the remaining adult convictions.
C. Determine Prior Record Score category by identifying the most serious previous adjudication or conviction offense, and then determining the number of previous offenses with the same grade:
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official
Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database.
Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities
of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the
official printed version.
