Com. v. Ogden, C.
140 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Ogden pled guilty (open plea) to recklessly endangering another person after a high-speed police chase and several other charges were nolle prossed.
- At sentencing on December 16, 2015, the court imposed 12 to 24 months’ incarceration (aggravated range of the guidelines).
- Ogden filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration (denied) and timely appealed. Court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
- Counsel fulfilled Anders/Santiago procedural and substantive requirements and identified three appellate issues: sentence excessive, trial court failed to state reasons for aggravated-range sentence, and RRRI eligibility.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, addressing discretionary-sentencing preservation and whether each claim presented a substantial question.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ogden's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1–2 year sentence was inappropriately harsh/excessive | Sentence was within statutory limits and supported by record; discretionary decision for trial court | Sentence is "so manifestly excessive" it constitutes too severe a punishment | No — claim does not raise a substantial question; bald excessiveness assertion insufficient |
| Whether trial court failed to state reasons for imposing an aggravated-range sentence | Court provided reasons at sentencing (Ogden’s repeated failures and continued drug use) | Court did not state sufficient reasons on the record for aggravated-range sentence | No — court stated reasons on the record; palpable consideration of offense and offender shown |
| Whether sentence was illegal for failing to designate RRRI eligibility | Defendant has prior second-degree misdemeanor simple assaults, making him ineligible under RRRI statutes | Trial court erred by failing to state RRRI eligibility and thus imposed illegal sentence | No — defendant ineligible for RRRI given prior convictions; no illegality |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders-brief substantive requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bald assertions of excessiveness do not present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Coss, 695 A.2d 831 (Pa. Super. 1997) (failure to state reasons for aggravated-range sentence can present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2014) (RRRI eligibility implicates legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 570 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statutory duty to state reasons on the record at sentencing)