Com. v. Kravitz, M.
Com. v. Kravitz, M. No. 2484 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- Michael A. Kravitz pleaded guilty to simple assault (second-degree misdemeanor) and was sentenced on December 15, 2014 to 3–23 months.
- Kravitz was granted parole and remained at liberty for ~17 months.
- He violated parole; a Gagnon II hearing was held on July 8, 2016 (hearing transcript not in record; court used parole agent’s report).
- The court revoked parole and recommitted Kravitz to serve full back time of 534 days, with parole to be reconsidered after completion of a county program (Prep II).
- Kravitz appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and a motion to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous. Kravitz did not file a pro se response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was harsh and excessive following parole revocation | Commonwealth: revocation and recommitment appropriate (implicitly arguing legal propriety) | Kravitz: total confinement was excessive given misdemeanor nature and 17 months at liberty; lesser confinement should suffice | Court: appeal frivolous; challenge to harshness/excessiveness is improper in parole-revocation appeals because court may only recommit to the original sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (permissible counsel withdrawal procedure where appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due-process framework for parole-revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural mandates for counsel seeking withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 632 A.2d 934 (Pa. Super. 1993) (parole revocation results in recommitment to original sentence; no new sentence may be imposed)
- Commonwealth v. Galletta, 864 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 2004) (challenges to harshness/excessiveness are improper in parole-revocation appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (reiterating limits on appellate review of parole revocation and nature of appropriate claims)
- Commonwealth v. Shimonvich, 858 A.2d 132 (Pa. Super. 2004) (issues about mitigation or reasons for sentence are improper in parole-revocation appeals)