Chapter 303 - SENTENCING GUIDELINES

  1. § 303.1 - Sentencing guidelines standards
  2. § 303.2 - Procedure for determining the guideline sentence
  3. § 303.3 - Offense Gravity Score-general
  4. § 303.4 - Prior Record Score-categories
  5. § 303.5 - Prior Record Score-prior convictions
  6. § 303.6 - Prior Record Score-prior juvenile adjudications
  7. § 303.7 - Prior Record Score-guideline points scoring
  8. § 303.8 - Prior Record Score-miscellaneous
  9. § 303.9 - Guideline sentence recommendation: general
  10. § 303.10 - Guideline sentence recommendations: enhancements
  11. § 303.11 - Guideline sentence recommendation: sentencing levels
  12. § 303.12 - Guideline sentence recommendations: sentencing and correctional programs
  13. § 303.13 - Guideline sentence recommendations: aggravated and mitigated circumstances
  14. § 303.14 - Guideline sentence recommendations- economic sanctions
  15. § 303.15 - Offense Listing
  16. § 303.16 - Basic Sentencing Matrix
  17. § 303.16(a) - Basic Sentencing Matrix
  18. § 303.16(b) - Basic Sentencing Matrix for Offenders Convicted of 1st or 2nd Degree Murder
  19. § 303.17 - DWE/Possessed Matrix
  20. § 303.17(a) - Deadly Weapon Enhancement/Possessed Matrix
  21. § 303.17(b) - Deadly Weapon Enhancement/Used Matrix
  22. § 303.18 - DWE/Used Matrix
  23. § 303.18(a) - School Enhancement Matrix
  24. § 303.18(b) - Youth Enhancement Matrix
  25. § 303.18(c) - School and Youth Enhancement Matrix
  26. § 303.19 - Youth/School Enhancement Matrices

Notes

The provisions of this Chapter 303 adopted May 14, 1982, effective July 22, 1982, 12 Pa.B. 1536, unless otherwise noted.

Notes of Decisions

Deadly Weapons Enhancement

The court did not err by imposing the deadly weapons enhancement on the charge of terroristic threats following appellant's act of flailing a kitchen knife at the officer called to the scene of a domestic incident. Commonwealth v. Beckwith, 674 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 1996) .

Deviation from Guidelines

The sentencing court, which deviated from the guidelines' suggested range, abused its discretion by focusing on its perceived seriousness of the offense, and by expressing its opinion that the guidelines for the particular offense are "ridiculous." The court also failed to consider the character and circumstances of the defendant. Because of the abuse of discretion, the sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 2001) .

State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.

No prior version found.