Com. v. Miller, S.
882 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Shawn Miller pled guilty to illegal dumping of methamphetamine waste and to theft; initially sentenced December 9, 2015 to an aggregate 15–30 months’ imprisonment plus probation (concurrent sentences).
- Miller violated probation by possessing drug paraphernalia and admitted the violation at a May 4, 2017 revocation hearing.
- At revocation, the court (the same judge who handled the original sentencing) resentenced Miller to 2–4 years’ imprisonment on one docket and one year probation on the other.
- Defense argued mitigating factors included Miller’s drug addiction and that he turned himself in and accepted responsibility.
- The court emphasized Miller’s extensive criminal history, numerous prior revocations and treatment opportunities, and concluded confinement was necessary under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(c).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal; the Superior Court performed an independent review, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in resentencing after probation revocation | Court failed to consider mitigating factors (drug addiction; turning himself in); sentence was excessive | Trial court reasonably considered record, prior revocations, and risk of recidivism; confinement justified under § 9771(c) | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed as lawful and supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state requirements for Anders-type briefing and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (when a discretionary sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review for revocation sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (affirming confinement after revocation to vindicate court authority and due to repeated noncompliance)