Com. v. Jackson, R.
Com. v. Jackson, R. No. 225 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Appellant Robert Jackson pled guilty to identity theft on May 8, 2012; sentenced to 9–24 months (credit for time served) followed by three years’ probation.
- Jackson later was convicted on separate dockets for bad checks and theft; a Gagnon II hearing on November 29, 2016 resulted in Jackson’s stipulation that he violated probation.
- The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Jackson to 1–2 years’ incarceration followed by one year of probation, to run concurrent with the new convictions’ sentences.
- Defense counsel (Patrick J. Connors) filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and notifying Jackson of his rights; Jackson filed no pro se brief or new counsel.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago procedures and performed an independent review of the record for non-frivolous issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1–2 year sentence after probation revocation is harsh and excessive (challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence) | Jackson contends the sentence is excessive | Attorney Connors contends the appeal is frivolous; trial court relied on new convictions and compliance with sentencing requirements | Waived for failure to preserve at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; bald excessiveness claim does not raise a substantial question; independent review found no non-frivolous issue — sentence affirmed and counsel withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures required when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds an appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process framework for probationrevocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for a proper Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review requirement to first examine counsel’s Anders withdrawal request)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test to invoke appellate review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (requirements for stating reasons on the record when resentencing after probation revocation)