The court has an obligation to consider new facts in resentencing. In Losch, the appellate reversal involed the vacation of the original sentence and remanded for resenteincing. The judge is not required to start afresh, but merely to correct the error that was the basis of the reversal.
A key function of the sentencing hearing is to allow an opportunity for the defense and the prosecution to supply a wide range of information concerning the person who is to be punished. It is the role of trial judge to weigh all mitigating and aggravating factors and arrive at an appropriate sentence. The final decision as to what sentence should be imposed is entrusted to the broad discretion of the sentencing authority. However, the court must reach its decision by following certain mandatory procedures. These procedures include the consideration of sufficient and accurate information.
Here are the facts of the case:
The defendant pled guilty and was convicted of burglary. Subsequently, defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing because the lower court failed to state on record the reason for the substantial disparity between defendant's sentence and that received by his codefendants. Defendant was resentenced to three concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years imprisonment, which he appealed on the basis that the court refused to consider evidence of defendant's good conduct. The court held that the sentencing court was required to consider evidence of defendant's good conduct while in prison and vacated the order and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the opinion. Commonwealth v. Losch, 369 Pa. Super. 192 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)
Some other issues to consider include that even long after the offense has been committed, a defendant's conduct and attitudes may reflect his potential for rehabilitation. A defendant's Bucks County criminal lawyer should know all of these factors, including, which weigh in favor of imposing a reduced criminal penalty include: the defendant's contrition and remorse for his misdeeds, his cooperation with law enforcement agencies, and his efforts to cure himself of drug addiction. The court does not think that these factors cease to be relevant as soon as the defendant is incarcerated.
When judgment of sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing, the judge at the resentencing hearing may not refuse to consider any relevant defense evidence concerning appellant's conduct since the prior sentencing hearing.