Com. v. Bortz, J.
Com. v. Bortz, J. No. 1262 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- In 2006 James Edward Bortz pled guilty to statutory sexual assault (2nd° felony) and corruption of minors (1st° misdemeanor). He received 8 months to 10 years state incarceration and two years’ consecutive probation.
- Bortz failed/refused required sex-offender treatment while in state custody and “maxed out” his state sentence without completing treatment.
- In 2016 the trial court held a probation-violation hearing for failure to enroll in/complete required sexual-offender treatment and counseling; the court found a violation.
- The court resentenced Bortz after revocation to 6 months to 2 years in a state correctional institution and denied his motion for reconsideration.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and motion to withdraw, arguing the appeal is frivolous; the court conducted independent review and concluded the appeal is frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw under Anders/Santiago | Commonwealth supported counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago technical requirements permitting review and withdrawal | Bortz opposed withdrawal (no response filed) or could pursue additional arguments if permitted | Court found counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and granted withdrawal; independent review found appeal frivolous |
| 2. Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying reconsideration and imposing 6–24 months after probation revocation (failure to consider rehabilitative needs/excessive) | Commonwealth urged the sentence was within the standard range and the court properly considered rehabilitation and public safety | Bortz argued sentence excessive and court failed to account for rehabilitative needs given he already served 10 years and could not complete treatment if returned to prison | Court held the claim lacked merit: sentencing was within range, court considered rehabilitative needs and prior refusals, and no abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standards for Anders-style briefs in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements and review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court must conduct independent review after Anders/Santiago compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court's independent review duty following Anders/Santiago)