Commonwealth v. Luketic

Vacating a six-to-twelve-month county sentence imposed following an open guilty plea to simple possession, the Superior Court reaffirmed that individualized sentencing is a fundamental norm of the Pennsylvania sentencing process and that a court abuses its discretion when it predetermines a sentence before considering the offender’s history, character, and rehabilitative needs. The opinion clarifies the appellate framework in two practical respects. First, on preservation, an open guilty plea does not waive a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence, and contemporaneous objection at the sentencing proceeding suffices to preserve the issue without a post-sentence motion. Second, on recusal, a request that the sentencing judge step aside must be made explicitly and on the record; objections framed as challenges to the court’s reasoning will not be construed as an implicit recusal motion. On the merits, the Court held that announcing a sentence of incarceration before hearing mitigation, sentencing a defendant by reference to a co-defendant’s sentence under a “two sides of the same coin” theory, and proceeding without a PSI or adequate presentence inquiry together establish a manifest abuse of discretion.