Com. v. Gardner, A., 1481 EDA 2016

Aaron Gardner was charged with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a victim under 16; the information was amended to criminal solicitation to commit that offense, to which Gardner pled guilty (open plea).
At sentencing Gardner had a prior criminal history score of 0 and an offense gravity level producing a guidelines standard range of 36–54 months.
The court received presentence materials including psychosexual and psychological evaluations documenting significant mental-health history (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression) and hospitalizations; defense argued mitigation and need for treatment.
The court imposed 2–5 years’ incarceration (within the mitigated range) followed by 5 years’ probation, citing need for longer state-level treatment programs and the interplay of mental-health issues with offense-specific treatment.
Post‑sentence, Gardner filed a pro se reconsideration motion while represented; his plea counsel later withdrew and new counsel filed a timely appeal and an Anders brief asserting the sentence was harsh and excessive.
The Superior Court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw under Anders and independently reviewed the record, finding no non‑frivolous issues and affirming the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2–5 year prison term is harsh and excessive (discretionary aspects of sentence)	Commonwealth argued the guidelines range (36–54 months) supported a substantial term and recommended no less than 36 months	Gardner argued sentence was excessive given mitigation (mental‑health issues, first criminal contact) and need for treatment	Court held Gardner’s challenge did not raise a substantial question and, in any event, the mitigated‑range sentence with a PSI review was not excessive; affirmed sentence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard‑range sentence imposed after consideration of a presentence report will not be deemed excessive)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains appellate deference to standard‑range sentences under the Sentencing Code)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review the record to identify any non‑frivolous issues when counsel seeks to withdraw)