Com. v. Dapp, C.
Com. v. Dapp, C. No. 27 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Christopher Dapp pled guilty in a negotiated plea to three counts of retail theft on December 12, 2014 and was sentenced February 5, 2015 to three consecutive one‑year terms of probation (aggregate three years).
- About 1.5 years into probation, Dapp filed a motion (Aug. 23, 2016) seeking early termination so he could re‑enlist for active military duty; a hearing was held Oct. 6, 2016.
- The Commonwealth opposed the motion; the trial court took the matter under advisement and denied early release on Oct. 12, 2016.
- Dapp appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago procedures and then addressed the substantive sentencing‑discretion issue.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial of early termination, emphasizing the negotiated plea terms and that the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying early termination of probation | Dapp argued the court should terminate probation early to permit military re‑enlistment | Commonwealth argued probation terms from the negotiated plea should remain; objection to early termination | Court held no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed because plea agreement terms weigh heavily against early termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1969) (standards for counsel to seek leave to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (applying Anders/Rojas withdrawal standards)
- Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (withdrawal procedure standards)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (substantive requirements for Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Proctor, 167 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for sentencing decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition of sentencing abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) (importance of enforcing negotiated plea terms)