Com. v. King, L.
Com. v. King, L. No. 2791 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- Larry King pled guilty in Oct 2013 to criminal trespass and criminal mischief; received time served to 12 months on trespass and one year probation consecutive on mischief.
- After a subsequent arrest and conviction for an unrelated robbery, a parole/probation revocation hearing was held Aug 15, 2016.
- King stipulated to the violation; court revoked parole/probation and imposed full backtime plus a consecutive 6–12 month sentence.
- No post-sentence motion was filed and King did not object at sentencing; counsel nonetheless filed a notice of appeal and an Anders brief.
- Counsel petitioned to withdraw under Anders/Santiago, arguing the sole appellate claim (that the 6–12 month term is harsh/excessive) is frivolous and the sentence was within the court’s discretion.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, conducted an independent record review, found the discretionary-sentencing claim waived, found no non-frivolous issues, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 6–12 month consecutive incarceration for violating probation is unduly harsh/excessive | King: the sentence is harsh and excessive under the circumstances | Commonwealth/Court: sentence was within trial court discretion and the claim is waived because no post-sentence motion or contemporaneous objection was made | Waived for failure to file post-sentence motion or raise at sentencing; appeal frivolous; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to petition to withdraw and briefly identify any potentially meritorious issues when asserting appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (supreme court standards for Anders brief content in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court must resolve counsel’s petition to withdraw before addressing appellate merits)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders/Santiago compliance requirements explained)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court must independently review record for overlooked non-frivolous issues)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discretionary-sentencing claims must be raised in post-sentence motion or at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (counsel must notify client of rights when filing Anders brief)