Com. v. Breznay, D.
Com. v. Breznay, D. No. 1111 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Appellant Donna M. Breznay pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance by an inmate (18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a.2)) on March 14, 2016.
- After a presentence investigation report (PSI), the trial court sentenced her on June 1, 2016 to 27 to 54 months’ incarceration (within the standard guideline range); sentence to run concurrently with an existing revocation sentence.
- Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion but filed a timely notice of appeal on June 27, 2016.
- Counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the discretionary-sentencing challenge was frivolous and that no non-frivolous issues existed.
- The Superior Court found counsel met Anders/Santiago technical requirements, independently reviewed the record, and determined (1) the sentencing claim was waived for failure to preserve it at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, and (2) even on the merits the sentence was reasonable and supported by the record.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a 27–54 month prison term | Breznay argued the court should have imposed a lighter sentence because of her cooperation, handicap, and participation in prison programs | Court relied on PSI, prior criminal history, seriousness of offense, guideline range, and need for rehabilitation; sentence within standard range and concurrent | Appeal fails: issue waived for lack of preservation; alternatively, no abuse of discretion and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to advise court when appeal is frivolous and to file supporting brief)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (sets Pennsylvania requirements for Anders brief on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review record for non-frivolous issues after Anders compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate deference to sentencing court that reviewed PSI and balanced factors)
- Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (allegation that court failed to consider mitigating factors does not necessarily raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discusses when discretionary-sentencing claims permit appellate review)