Com. v. McCray, T.
Com. v. McCray, T. No. 102 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- McCray pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property (Dec. 16, 2014) and was sentenced to 18 months’ probation while already on probation for an attempted burglary conviction.
- Probation officers initially took no action but later documented relapse and violations: admitted (then disputed) cocaine use, placement in a Renewal Program, removal for possession of contraband, and incarceration beginning Feb. 2015.
- Following a Gagnon II hearing, the court found McCray had violated probation and resentenced him on Dec. 15, 2015 to 18–36 months’ incarceration plus two years’ probation.
- Court-appointed counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw; McCray did not file a response to the petition.
- The sole issue raised on appeal was that the revocation sentence (18–36 months) was excessive because the court allegedly relied on impermissible factors (McCray’s unwillingness to participate in programs and lack of motivation).
- The Superior Court reviewed the discretionary-sentencing claim (despite preservation issues because Anders procedures applied) and affirmed the revocation sentence as reasonable and not based on impermissible factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 18–36 month sentence after probation revocation was excessive | McCray: sentence excessive because court relied on impermissible factors (his refusal to attend programs; lack of motivation) | Commonwealth: sentence within court’s discretion; revocation permits original sentencing range and court properly considered offender conduct | Affirmed: sentence within standard range, court reasonably weighed lack of program participation and motivation; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirement for counsel to file brief identifying any non-frivolous issues when seeking withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders procedures applied in Pennsylvania; requirements for counsel’s withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. en banc 2013) (scope of review of discretionary sentencing challenges after revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preservation requirement for discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court limited by original maximum sentence at time of probation)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (court must state on record reasons for sentence; record must show consideration of offender and offense)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing guidelines do not apply to revocation proceedings)