Com. v. Anthony, B.
156 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Bryan D. Anthony pled guilty (May 6, 2015) to involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault by vehicle, and related summary offenses for a fatal multi-vehicle crash on Feb. 22, 2014.
- On June 8, 2016, the court sentenced Anthony to 23 months of county Intermediate Punishment (IP) with the first 90 days on electronic home monitor, plus fines and restitution.
- Probation filed a revocation petition (Aug. 16, 2016) alleging Anthony committed technical violations: leaving home without authorization multiple times (four casino visits) and lying to a probation officer.
- At a Gagnon II hearing (Oct. 13, 2016) Anthony stipulated to the technical violations; the court revoked his IP and ordered a presentence investigation.
- At resentencing (Nov. 22, 2016) the court imposed 1–5 years incarceration on involuntary manslaughter and a consecutive 1–5 years on aggravated assault by vehicle, citing breaches of promise, lack of demonstrated empathy, risk of future crime, need for confinement to vindicate court authority, and rehabilitative/treatment needs.
- Anthony filed post-sentence motions, obtained nunc pro tunc leave to appeal, and raised a discretionary-sentencing challenge arguing the sentence was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was excessive / challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing | Commonwealth: sentence within statutory limits and supported by reasons articulated at sentencing | Anthony: sentence excessive given plea bargain expectation of no confinement and claimed genuine remorse/empathy | Court held Anthony failed to preserve a sufficient Rule 2119(f) statement; did not invoke appellate jurisdiction to review discretionary sentencing, so claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (Gagnon II revocation hearing procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (Rule 2119(f) must explain why sentence violates Sentencing Code or fundamental norms)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 737 A.2d 225 (Pa. 1999) (requirement to articulate sentencing-code-based challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Saranchak, 675 A.2d 268 (Pa. 1996) (appellant must explain why sentence is improper)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (plausible argument needed to raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Hornaman, 920 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2007) (excessive-sentence claim implicates discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four-part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (claims abandoned if not developed in brief)