Com. v. Moore, J.
1133 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Jordan Moore pled guilty in Dec. 2015 to aggravated assault and was sentenced to 9–23 months’ imprisonment followed by four years’ probation.
- In May 2017, while on supervision, Moore incurred new criminal charges and stipulated that he had received those charges.
- Moore admitted violating his probation and waived a revocation hearing; the court revoked probation and resentenced him to time served to 60 months in a state correctional facility.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal and raised two issues: (1) the court failed to account for Moore’s personal circumstances and place-of-confinement preference (county jail near family) when resentencing, and (2) the court lacked authority to revoke probation before disposition of the new charges.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed the judgment of sentence, and granted counsel permission to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation court abused its discretion by imposing confinement in a state correctional facility rather than county jail and failing to account for Moore’s personal/family circumstances | Moore argued the court failed to adequately consider his personal circumstances and his request to be incarcerated near family at Franklin County Jail | Commonwealth argued the sentence was within the lawful range, the court considered Moore’s circumstances, and rejecting the place-of-confinement request was within sentencing discretion | Court held no abuse of discretion; sentence was within statutory range and the court explicitly considered Moore’s family circumstances when denying his request |
| Whether the court could revoke probation based on the filing of new charges before their disposition | Moore contended the court lacked authority to revoke probation prior to conviction on new charges | Commonwealth argued a revocation hearing may be held after new charges are filed and before their disposition; Moore stipulated to the violations | Court held revocation before disposition was permissible and Moore’s stipulation foreclosed challenge |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements to withdraw | Counsel filed a petition to withdraw with an Anders brief and informed the client; Moore did not respond | Commonwealth implicitly maintained counsel complied with Anders obligations | Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago and permitted withdrawal |
| Whether discretionary-sentencing claim raised a substantial question and was preserved | Moore (via counsel) sought review despite missing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement | Commonwealth would treat the Rule 2119(f) omission as waiver | Court reviewed in Anders context, concluded the claim did not present a substantial question meriting relief and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural protections for counsel withdrawing in a frivolous appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state guidance on Anders-type withdrawal procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (revocation hearing may occur after new charges are filed and before their disposition)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for sentencing following probation revocation)