Com. v. Coulter, D., Jr.
Com. v. Coulter, D., Jr. No. 1599 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 18, 2017Background
- Daniel J. Coulter, Jr. entered open guilty pleas in 2007 to multiple DUI offenses and driving with a suspended license; sentencing was scheduled in January 2008 but he failed to appear, and a bench warrant issued. He was arrested on the warrant eight years later.
- On August 25, 2015, the trial court sentenced Coulter as a repeat felony offender (RFEL) to an aggregate term of 24 to 48 months (within statutory range for a second DUI).
- Coulter filed a timely PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of post-sentence rights; the court appointed counsel, held a reconsideration hearing, denied relief, but amended the sentence to permit work release. Appeal rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc and Coulter appealed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous; Coulter filed a pro se response contending, for the first time, that pre-1988 convictions were improperly counted in his prior record score.
- The Superior Court conducted the Anders-framework review, performed an independent review of the record, and considered whether the RFEL classification and resulting sentence were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing Coulter as a RFEL based on an incorrect prior record score | Coulter argued (pro se) that pre-1988 felony convictions should not be counted because he claimed sentencing guidelines were ineffective before 1988 | Commonwealth/trial court: prior felony and misdemeanor convictions properly count toward prior record/RFEL status; DUI "lookback" for prior DUIs is 10 years but other criminal history has no time limit | Court held RFEL classification and sentence proper; prior convictions (regardless of date) may be used for prior record score and Coulter qualified as RFEL |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders and whether any non-frivolous issues exist | Coulter challenged the Anders brief pro se asserting an arguable merit | Counsel asserted the appeal was frivolous and followed Anders/Millisock requirements | Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders obligations, conducted independent review, found no non-frivolous issues, and granted counsel's withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (additional obligations for counsel withdrawing on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review the record for non-frivolous issues after Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four-part test for addressing discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 1998) (standard of review and error-of-law framing for misapplication of sentencing guidelines)