Com. v. Delaney, S.
1627 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- On May 26, 2016 police responded to reports of shotgun blasts at Delaney's home after his wife reported he was intoxicated and armed; officers established a perimeter and attempted negotiations.
- Delaney fired two shots toward officers, told them to shoot him, and was later found passed out in his bed and taken into custody after use of a tactical robot.
- Delaney pleaded open guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, discharge of a firearm in an occupied structure, and possessing an instrument of crime.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 12 to 24 years' imprisonment plus six years' probation on April 13, 2017.
- Defense counsel (Attorney Foltz) filed an Anders brief and sought permission to withdraw; the court evaluated counsel's compliance with Anders and Santiago before independently reviewing the record.
- Delaney challenged the discretionary aspects of his sentence, pointing to mental illness, abuse history, substance use, suicide ideation, and recent personal loss; the appeal was reviewed despite preservation defects because Anders requires independent scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements to withdraw | Foltz contends he conducted a conscientious review, identified no non-frivolous issues, filed an Anders brief, and notified Delaney of rights | Delaney did not oppose; no separate counsel argued noncompliance | Court held counsel substantially complied with Anders and Santiago and granted withdrawal |
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessively severe | Delaney argued the sentence was harsh and court should have given more weight to mitigation (mental illness, abuse history, daughter's death, suicidal intent) | Commonwealth and sentencing court emphasized dangerous conduct, prior record, community impact; court relied on PSI and on-the-record consideration of mitigating factors | Court held no abuse of discretion: judge considered PSI and mitigating factors, sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discussing Anders procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial compliance standard for Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for claiming discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing discretionary abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and mitigating factors)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSI can satisfy on-the-record reasons for sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 578 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Anders court must review discretionary sentencing claims even if not preserved)
- Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Anders review of non-preserved sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2007) (waiver of sentencing claims absent post-sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Rule 2119(f) defect may be waived if Commonwealth does not object)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA petition not permitted while direct appeal pending)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (pro se filings while represented are legal nullities)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (open guilty pleas do not preclude challenge to discretionary sentencing)