Com. v. Brunori, L.
744 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Appellant Leo James Brunori pled guilty (2009) to DUI—highest rate, second offense; placed on intermediate punishment with intermittent confinement and repeated probation terms.
- Over several years Brunori violated supervision multiple times (including alcohol use while on SCRAM house arrest and failure to report), leading to successive resentencings and revocations.
- On January 30, 2017, after a Gagnon II hearing, the court found a fourth violation (failure to report) and imposed a consecutive six-to-12-month term.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration (seeking county confinement/work-release eligibility); motion denied. Counsel withdrew; Appellant filed a pro se appeal and new counsel was appointed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, raising (among others) an illegality challenge under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762 (placement in DOC vs. county prison) and several discretionary-sentencing claims.
- The trial court subsequently amended its order to direct service of the six-to-12-month term in the county prison, mooting the § 9762 placement issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of confinement placement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762 | Brunori argued the court illegally directed service in a state correctional facility for a <2-year maximum term | Commonwealth corrected order to county prison after appeal; court found placement issue moot | Moot — trial court amended order to county prison; no relief required |
| Authority to revoke for conduct occurring before probation began | Brunori contended the violation occurred before his probationary term started, so revocation was improper | Commonwealth and court relied on precedent that revocation may follow even if offense preceded commencement of probation | Waived on appeal; substantial-question not preserved; even on merits precedent allows revocation |
| Disproportionality/excessiveness of sentence for a technical violation | Brunori argued sentence was harsh because violation was technical and not new criminal charges | Commonwealth asserted sentencing after revocation was within court discretion given repeated violations | Waived on appeal for not raising those specific discretionary arguments below; deemed frivolous |
| Failure to await completed mental health evaluation before sentencing | Brunori argued court should have waited for evaluation to inform sentencing | Commonwealth noted no timely preservation and court proceeded within its discretion | Waived and frivolous due to lack of preservation and record support |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel seeking withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (procedural protections for probation/parole revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and jurisdiction for legality-of-sentence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review Anders filings and decide frivolity)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements)