Com. v. Dry, D.
Com. v. Dry, D. No. 1393 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- David Dry pled guilty to two counts of PWID (fentanyl) at Docket No. 1698-2011 and was repeatedly paroled and resentenced after parole violations.
- At Docket No. 4993-2015 Dry pled guilty to one count of terroristic threats and was sentenced to two years of intermediate punishment with six months electronic monitoring.
- A detainer issued May 2016; on July 25, 2016 the court held a combined revocation hearing for parole (1698-2011) and probation/IP (4993-2015).
- The probation officer testified Dry committed multiple technical violations: threatening/being discharged from rehab, failure to make fines/costs payments, no valid address, periods of electronic monitoring unaccountability (with some hospitalizations), and admitted medication/opiates abuse.
- Dry and counsel did not contest the facts at hearing but sought inpatient treatment placement and argued some conduct was mischaracterized or excused by hospitalization.
- Trial court revoked parole and probation, imposed sentences (12 months, 3 days at one docket; two years’ probation concurrent at the other), and this appeal followed; counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief and petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke parole and probation | Commonwealth: probation officer’s testimony established technical violations by a preponderance | Dry: violations were technical/insufficient; some alleged failures were explained (hospitalization, disputed rehab incidents) | Court affirmed revocations — officer’s testimony sufficient to show multiple violations and that supervision failed to promote rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (procedures for counsel withdrawal in Pennsylvania)
- Colon v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (revocation discretionary; probation balances rehabilitation against public safety)
- Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (technical violations may trigger revocation)
- Gochenaur v. Commonwealth, 480 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 1984) (parole revocation focuses on parole's effectiveness for rehabilitation)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review record where counsel seeks withdrawal)