Court upholds decision on probation in drug case

Prosecution claimed sentence was too lenient

The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Friday upheld a Blair County judge's decision to sentence a Williamsburg man to probation for alleged drug offenses that occurred in 2021 despite complaints by the prosecution that the sentence was "excessively lenient" and that it "unreasonably deviated" from Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines.

Scott Andrew Baker Jr., 29, was originally sentenced to the Blair County Drug Court and eight years of probation after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a small amount of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Former Blair County President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle imposed the sentence after conferring with his defense counsel, Kristen L. Anastasi, and Assistant District Attorney Julia Wilt, and after reviewing statements from members of Baker's family and Baker himself.

A provision of the sentence was that Baker would remain in the Blair County Prison until his evaluation for drug court was completed and his eventual release would rest on whether his placement in the specialty court was appropriate.

While the Commonwealth did not strenuously object to the proposed sentence, a few days after it was imposed, District Attorney Pete Weeks and Assistant District Attorney Wilt asked Doyle to reconsider her sentence, arguing that Baker was not eligible for drug court participation due to the weight of the drugs found by police during a traffic stop, and the sentence was well below the mitigated range for his offenses.

Doyle decided to hold a hearing on the motion to reconsider Baker's sentence, partially because she did not want to assign Baker to the Drug Court if he was not a good candidate.

According to the Superior Court decision published, Doyle indicated she "did not want to shoehorn (Baker) into drug court that the drug court judge opposes."

She held hearings concerning the prosecution's complaints but in the end remained firm in her conclusion that the below-guidelines sentence was appropriate.

In her new sentence, she pointed out Baker was still behind bars and that she was not going to order his release until he could be evaluated for admission for inpatient treatment in an alternative facility.

After attending inpatient treatment, she said he was to be placed under supervision by the Blair County Adult Parole and Probation Department.

She concluded her revised sentence by stating, "So, basically, without putting him in the Blair County Drug Court, I've sentenced him to the Blair County Drug Court with perhaps a little more incarceration than most people in Drug Court get."

Blair County authorities filed an appeal of Doyle's new sentence with the Superior Court, questioning what the appeals court characterized as the "discretionary aspects" of the judge's sentence.

A Superior Court panel that included Judges Jack A. Panella, Correale F. Stevens and Judith F. Olson agreed with Doyle's new sentence.

Panella and Stevens rested their decisions on the issues of the case, while Olson explained that the prosecution failed to submit its legal brief in the case on a timely basis.

Olson emphasized that Doyle had given the Blair prosecutors until March 15, 2023, to file their legal brief, but noted it wasn't filed until May 18, 2023.

Olson explained that filing an untimely brief was in essence a "waiver" of the Commonwealth's issues.

The other two judges, however, addressed the issues presented by the Commonwealth.

They initially decided that the prosecution had presented the court with a substantial legal issue -- the sentence was too lenient and violated the state's sentencing guidelines.

In their opinion, Panella and Stevens outlined the parameters that guide a judge's sentencing decisions.

The sentencing court must review the history and characteristics of the defendant; review a presentence investigation as well as the sentencing guidelines; consider the gravity of the alleged crimes and their impact on the community; and, finally, the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

"This Court may vacate a sentence if it finds the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable," the opinion stated.

It reviewed Doyle's explanation of why Baker received a lenient sentence.

She pointed out he took responsibility for his actions.

The judge noted he had a low prior record score.

He was involved in only one incident and the investigation did not involve sales to others, Doyle reasoned.

"This was a vehicle stop where the drugs were found in the bag of your codefendant (who received a sentence of three-to-six years). Obviously you have taken responsibility for those drugs in part," Doyle explained during her sentencing of Baker.

But in her sentencing, she also pointed out that Baker was involved in his child's life.

"I think it is a benefit if you can be a sober person in that child's life," Doyle explained prior to sentencing Baker.

The Superior Court opinion by Panella and Stevens concluded, "It is apparent the trial court considered all of the relevant factors (under the law) in deviating from the sentencing guidelines. ... We simply cannot say the trial court abused its discretion under the totality of the circumstances."

Baker is presently in a state program at the Quehanna Boot Camp in Clearfield County.