Sometimes, your Lehigh County criminal lawyer will look to get your sentences "concurrent" rather than "consecutive". This is to your time is minimized in jail or on probation. Concurrent sentences are authorized, but are normally at the discretion of the sentencing judge at the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. The standard in Pennsylvania is that trial judges are vested with broad discretion in sentencing, and a sentence will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. In order to constitute an abuse of discretion, a sentence must either exceed statutory limits or be manifestly excessive.
In Commonwealth v. Blood of 1986, the Superior Court found that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to concurrent sentences of three to six years for burglary and two to four years for escape, even assuming the sentences exceeded the guidelines. The Court noted that the defendant was 22 years old and had two prior felonies as a juvenile and some theft cases as an adult. However, a psychiatric evaluation indicated that the defendant was impulsive and lacked judgement.
In the same vein, Commonwealth v. Eckles of 1993 found that concurrent sentences were permissible for convictions on multiple counts of homicide by vehicle while DUI.
In a divided Supreme Court, it was decided in 1978 that sentences that were not specified to run concurrently or consecutively would run concurrently as the Rule of Lenity would allow in Commonwealth v. Rice. Along the same lines, Commonwealth v. Pristas stated that regardless of whether the defendant has started to serve his time on prior sentence or is released on bail pending disposition or an appeal, a subsequent sentence is presumed to be concurrent unless the trial court specifically directs otherwise. Again, in Com. ex rel. Woods v. Howard, from 1977, a second sentence was deemed to run concurrent with a prior sentence unless the sentencing court expressly directs that the second sentence shall run consecutively.
Finally, in Commonwealth v. Anwyll from 1984, the defendant received a concurrent sentence of not less than two nor more than five years imprisonment following a guilty pleat to three counts of forgery. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits for felonies of the second degree pursuant to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1103(2). The court also held that the sentence was not excessive and was consistent with the gravity of the offenses, the protection of the public, and the rehabilitative needs of appellant.