Com. v. Hartman, A.
1800 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Appellant Ashlynn Taylor Hartman had multiple drug- and theft-related convictions across three dockets and repeatedly violated probation, resulting in several resentencings.
- Offenses include possession with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia, and receiving stolen property; she also pled guilty to additional offenses at a separate docket shortly before final resentencing.
- After multiple probation revocations and failed treatment attempts (including distributing medication to other patients at an inpatient facility), the trial court resentenced Hartman on September 16, 2015 to consecutive terms totaling 30 to 72 months’ imprisonment.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw on appeal, asserting the discretionary aspects of sentencing were the only potentially arguable issue.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders procedures, independently examined the record, and evaluated whether Hartman raised a substantial question regarding the discretionary aspects of her sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary aspects of the revocation sentences are appealable | Hartman argued the aggregate consecutive sentences were manifestly unreasonable given recent childbirth, positive changes (electronic monitoring, day reporting), and that concurrent sentences would be appropriate | Trial court relied on repeated probation violations, failed treatment attempts, new convictions, and misconduct at treatment facility; court had PSR and probation packet | Superior Court held Hartman raised a nominal substantial question but affirmed sentences as within discretion and not an abuse |
| Whether the trial court improperly weighed mitigating factors (e.g., lack of jail programming, prescription for Xanax) | Hartman claimed the court overemphasized negative factors and failed to consider mitigating circumstances (recent childbirth, limited programming opportunity, prescription use) | Court focused on repeated failures, distribution of medication to others, and prior opportunities for treatment; presence of PSR presumed consideration of factors | Court found no improper reliance; emphasized distribution of medication and repeated violations justified confinement |
| Whether total confinement was permissible after probation revocation | Hartman implied confinement was excessive | Commonwealth noted Hartman pled guilty to new offenses and met statutory bases for confinement after revocation | Court concluded total confinement was permissible because Hartman had new convictions and conduct indicated likelihood of reoffense or vindication of court authority |
| Whether counsel complied with required Anders procedure permitting withdrawal | Hartman did not supplement Anders brief | Counsel filed petition to withdraw, Anders brief, provided copy to client, advised of rights; panel previously remanded for correction which counsel complied with | Superior Court granted counsel's petition to withdraw after independent review and found appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal appears frivolous)
- McClendon v. Commonwealth, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (state precedent cited with Anders authority)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural obligations when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Best v. Commonwealth, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discretionary sentencing review is treated as petition for allowance to appeal)
- Edwards v. Commonwealth, 71 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factors to permit review of discretionary sentencing challenge)
- Ventura v. Commonwealth, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing appeals)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consecutive sentence challenge may raise substantial question when aggregate is unduly harsh)
- Gonzalez v. Commonwealth, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (mitigating-factor/ excessive sentence claims can present substantial question)
- Wallace v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2005) (court can impose any sentence available at original sentencing upon revocation)
- Hoover v. Commonwealth, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for probation-revocation sentencing)
- Downing v. Commonwealth, 990 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2010) (presumption that trial court considered appropriate sentencing factors where PSR is available)