Com. v. Ortiz, L.
158 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Luis Ortiz pled guilty on October 11, 2016 to multiple sexual-offense charges involving four minor victims (charges included aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, corruption of minors, and indecent exposure) arising from conduct between 2011 and 2015.
- Sentencing occurred after preparation and review of a presentence investigation (PSI).
- The trial court imposed an aggregate standard-range sentence of 78 to 156 months’ incarceration, followed by two years’ probation.
- Ortiz filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration and a timely notice of appeal; his trial counsel sought to withdraw on appeal under Anders v. California.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief (complying with Santiago requirements) arguing the sole issue: whether the sentence was harsh and excessive given Ortiz’s guilty pleas and zero prior record score.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, considered sentencing factors and the PSI, and affirmed the judgment of sentence while granting counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 78–156 month sentence is harsh and excessive | Ortiz argued sentence excessive because he accepted responsibility by pleading guilty and had a zero prior record score | Trial court argued sentence was within the standard guideline range, imposed after review of facts, PSI, and consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) factors | Court held no abuse of discretion; sentence within standard range with benefit of PSI and properly considered sentencing factors, so not manifestly excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 951 A.2d 379 (Pa. Super. 2008) (procedural requirements for Anders withdrawal review)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for appellate counsel when seeking withdrawal under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when discretionary aspects of sentence present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) requirements for discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2004) (content required in a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sentencing discretion and standards)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (statutory factors for reviewing reasonableness of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard-range sentence with PSI is presumptively appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (reinforcing that standard-range sentences are presumptively appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (courts may assume sentencing court considered relevant character information when PSI reviewed)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Anders review may require addressing issues otherwise waived)