Com. v. Martell, M.
Com. v. Martell, M. No. 1718 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- On June 29, 2016 Mary E. Martell was observed on store surveillance removing children’s clothing from Gabriel Brothers and placing items in her purse; loss prevention confronted her and she left the store.
- A state trooper stopped Martell’s vehicle; Martell admitted theft and her purse contained ten Gabriel Brothers items with tags totaling $56.92; items were returned.
- Martell entered an open guilty plea to retail theft (18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1)).
- The trial court imposed 1–2 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to other sentences; court found RRRI eligibility and reduced the effective minimum to nine months.
- Post-sentence motion sought serving time in a county jail or making the sentence concurrent, but did not challenge sentence length as excessive; the motion was denied.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief raising a discretionary-sentencing claim; the Superior Court found Anders requirements met, reviewed the record, and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s sentence is manifestly excessive and the court failed to consider 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors | Martell argued sentence length was excessive and that the court did not adequately consider protection of the public, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs | Commonwealth/trial court argued sentence was a standard-range, discretionary sentence and the court considered prior convictions, community impact, and rehabilitation | Appeal denied: sentencing claim not preserved in post-sentence motion; on the merits court considered § 9721(b) factors and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s withdrawal procedure on appeal for frivolous claims)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (procedural requirements for Anders briefs in Pennsylvania)
- Orellana v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (details Anders/Santiago compliance and appellate review duties)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requires independent review for additional non-frivolous issues)
- Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Schutzues v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2012) (record must reflect consideration of crime facts and offender’s character when sentencing)