Com. v. Grier, D., Com. v. Grier, D. No. 2147 EDA 2016

Appellant Donald P. Grier Jr. pled guilty to theft by unlawful taking for stealing copper from a power station and was sentenced to 6–24 months imprisonment (per plea), followed by one year of probation.
After release, Grier absconded from probation supervision; at a Gagnon II hearing he stipulated to probation violation and explained he left because he was from Delaware.
The trial court revoked probation and resentenced Grier to 6–24 months incarceration followed by one year of probation; counsel did not object to the length or other discretionary aspects at sentencing.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous; counsel notified Grier of his rights and Grier did not respond.
The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago standards, found the procedural requirements satisfied, and determined no non-frivolous issues were present.
Because Grier failed to preserve a discretionary-sentencing challenge at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, the court held that claim was waived and affirmed the judgment of sentence and granted counsel’s withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 6–24 month sentence after probation revocation is excessive	Commonwealth argued sentence was within court’s discretion after revocation and appropriately imposed	Grier contended sentence was harsh/excessive (discretionary challenge)	Waived for failure to preserve at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; no non-frivolous appellate issue found; judgment affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel’s withdrawal on appeal when appeal is frivolous)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process procedures for probation revocation hearings)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements when counsel files an Anders brief)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements in Pennsylvania and counsel’s obligations)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for appellate review of discretionary sentencing challenges)