Com. v. Monroe, M.
1853 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Michael Monroe stabbed and killed his girlfriend’s son with a butcher knife after a domestic dispute; Monroe claimed he believed the victim had a gun.
- Monroe pled guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (unreasonable belief); other charges were withdrawn as part of the plea.
- At sentencing the trial court applied the Sentencing Guidelines’ deadly-weapon enhancement and imposed 75 to 200 months’ imprisonment.
- Monroe filed, then withdrew, a post-sentence motion asserting his sentence was illegal under Alleyne v. United States.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief seeking leave to withdraw, identifying and explaining why Monroe’s Alleyne challenge is frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying the deadly-weapon sentencing enhancement violated Alleyne | Monroe: Alleyne requires any fact that increases mandatory minimums be found by a jury, so the enhancement is unconstitutional | Commonwealth: The deadly-weapon enhancement is a discretionary guidelines consideration, not a mandatory minimum element | Court: Enhancement is not a mandatory minimum under Alleyne; sentence is lawful |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements to withdraw | Monroe: (no supplemental filings; argued neither) | Counsel: Per Anders/Santiago, counsel reviewed the record, provided appellant the brief, and explained why appeal is frivolous | Court: Counsel substantially complied; appellate court conducted independent review and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file motion/brief when seeking to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requires counsel to explain reasons supporting frivolity conclusion when moving to withdraw)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishes sentencing enhancements from Alleyne mandatory minimums)