Com. v. Gamble, R.
Com. v. Gamble, R. No. 402 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- On June 15, 2016, a confidential informant arranged and completed a controlled buy from Jamie Smith: a quarter ounce of marijuana and a half gram of cocaine.
- Police searched the CI and vehicle beforehand, observed the hand-to-hand exchange, recovered the knotted baggies, and followed Smith’s car; Gamble was a passenger in Smith’s vehicle.
- Police found a digital scale and over $200 on Gamble, the photocopied buy money in Smith’s console, and an eye-lens case with suspected cocaine in Smith’s car; Smith admitted the marijuana was hers and the cocaine was Gamble’s.
- The substances tested positive for cocaine. Gamble pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance (ungraded felony) on December 5, 2016.
- On February 6, 2017, Gamble was sentenced to 1 to 3 years’ incarceration; his post-sentence motion was denied and he appealed. Counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief seeking permission to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by not imposing a mitigated-range sentence | Appellee (Commonwealth) argued sentence was proper given facts and admissions | Gamble argued the court failed to adequately consider his mitigating factors and should have imposed a mitigated-range sentence | Court held Gamble’s claim was a discretionary-sentencing challenge that did not raise a substantial question because mere claim of inadequate consideration of mitigation is insufficient; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for custodial Miranda warnings)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court’s independent review after Anders compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592 (Pa. Super. 2006) (claims that court failed to consider mitigation do not raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (when a substantial question exists under sentencing statute)