Com. v. Constantini, D., 3135 EDA 2018

Appellant David F. Constantini was convicted in 2012 of retail theft and receiving stolen property and sentenced to 2–4 years’ incarceration followed by 3 years’ probation.
While on supervision, Appellant pled guilty in 2012 to drug-related offenses at a separate docket.
On October 10, 2018, following a Gagnon II hearing, the trial court found Appellant had violated probation, revoked probation, and imposed a new sentence of 2–4 years’ incarceration.
Appellant filed a timely pro se post-sentence motion and notice of appeal; appellate counsel later filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
Counsel identified only one arguable issue: whether the new sentence was excessive (a discretionary-sentencing challenge).
The Superior Court concluded counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements, found no substantial question presented on the sentencing claim, conducted an independent review, agreed the appeal was frivolous, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2–4 year sentence after probation revocation was harsh/excessive (discretionary-sentencing claim)	Appellant argued the sentence was excessive under the circumstances	Commonwealth argued sentence was within court’s discretion and no substantial question was raised	Court held the bald claim of excessiveness did not present a substantial question; declined to review merits and affirmed sentence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content and procedural requirements in Pennsylvania)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (two-step inquiry for probation-revocation hearings)
Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)