Not only does the case law authorize a sentencing court to consider any prosecuted criminal conduct, the sentencing guidelines essentially mandates such consideration when a Prior Record Score inadequately reflects a defendants criminal background. When the adequacy of the prior record score is called into question, the sentencing guidelines provide that the court "may consider at sentencing previous convictions, juvenile adjudications or dispositions not counted in the calculation of the prior record score, in addition to other factors deemed appropriate by the court. Thus, the court is able to take a broad view on all relevant factors in crafting a sentence. Your Lehigh County criminal lawyer should be aware of all of your prior's from your "rap sheet". On the other hand, uncharged criminal conduct may not be used for sentencing purposes when the record is devoid of the necessary evidentiary link between the defendant and the uncharged prior conduct.
In Commonwealth v. Chase of 1987, the defendant was convicted of three counts of terroristic threats. Three days after the conviction, a juror received a terroristic threat over the phone. The juror could not identify the defendant as the caller, but the trial court concluded that the defendant was the perpetrator and relied upon the conduct when imposing sentence (meaning - the judge enhanced the sentence because of the alleged conduct). The Superior Court vacated the sentence based upon the trial courts improper consideration of that conduct.
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Sypin from 1985, the defendant was convicted of involuntary deviant sexual intercourse and corruption of minors involving a nine-year-old boy. At sentencing, the trial court referred to the disappearance and death of other children. The Superior Court held that since the defendant had not been charged in connection with the disappearance or death of any child, the court's consideration of such incidents was improper. In Commonwealth v. Cruz, from 1979, the Superior Court further determined that a defendant could not be sentenced based on unsubstantiated accusations attributed to unnamed sources that the defendant dealt large quantities of drugs.