Com. v. Arrington, M.
Com. v. Arrington, M. No. 809 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- Appellant Mark Arrington pled guilty to interference with custody of children (18 Pa.C.S. § 2904(a)) and indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7)) after picking up an 8‑year‑old girl without parental permission and kissing her on the lips; other charges were withdrawn in the plea deal.
- On April 20, 2016, the trial court sentenced Arrington to 16 to 84 months for interference with custody and a concurrent 16 to 60 months for indecent assault; post‑sentence motion was denied.
- Appellant argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and that mitigating factors (no similar priors, completed treatment, alcoholism, family ties) warranted a lesser term.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a petition to withdraw under Anders accompanied by an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous and notifying Arrington of his rights.
- The Superior Court examined counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago requirements and conducted an independent review of the record before ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders withdrawal | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago, provided required notice, and identified any arguable issues | Arrington did not challenge counsel’s procedural compliance | Court found counsel met Anders obligations and granted withdrawal |
| Discretionary‑aspects sentencing challenge | Commonwealth: sentence within guideline range after PSI review was appropriate | Arrington: sentence was manifestly excessive and court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors | Court held no substantial question raised; affirmed sentence as standard‑range and not excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies content requirements for Anders briefs in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses appellate counsel’s Anders/Santiago duties and reviewing court obligations)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard‑range sentences imposed after PSI review are not excessive)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim of excessive sentence within guidelines fails to raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (allegation that court failed to consider mitigating factors generally does not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requires counsel to provide appellant notice when seeking to withdraw)