# Commonwealth v. Goggins

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 9, 2000 · 748 A.2d 721

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754996

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Inmom GOGGINS, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 9, 2000
- **Citations:** 748 A.2d 721
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens
- **Judges:** McEwen, Cavanaugh, Kelly, Popovich, Johnson, Elliott, Stevens, Schiller, Lally-Green
- **Cited by:** 373 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that double counting a ____________________________________________ 3 Rule 2119(f) provides that “[a]n appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for …
- finding a substantial question raised where the appellant asserted that the sentencing -4- J-S12030-24 court “impos[ed] a sentence outside the guidelines without providing adequate reasons, and relied on factors already taken into account in determining his prior record score …
- stating that “where a defendant merely asserts that his sentence is inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme without explaining how or why, we cannot determine whether he has raised a substantial question.”
- holding that the court’s awareness of the evidence adduced at trial and certain information received during the oral colloquy was no substitute for the “searching inquiry” required of a presentence investigation
- holding sentencing court did not double-count the amount of drugs possessed by defendant in imposing a sentence above the applicable drug-weight-based -8- J-S28008-19 mandatory minimum; instead, its focus upon the number of packets of the drug, and hence the number of individu…

## Opinion text

STEVENS, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. I agree with the Majority that the trial court abused its discretion in dispensing with a pre-sen-tence report on the basis that Philadelphia county’s prison system would be “overburdened” with state prisoners while awaiting a pre-sentence report.
¶ 2 However, I would find that in this case, a review of the record indicates that there was sufficient additional background information obtained by the trial court with its colloquy with the defendant. On that basis, I would find that the trial court’s decision not to order a P.S.I. report was discretionary with the trial court, and there was no abuse of discretion.
¶ 3 Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the trial court to not order a P.S.I. under the facts of the within case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754996. Public record. Not legal advice.