Com. v. Paulino, E.
442 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Emmanuel Paulino pled guilty in two cases: aggravated assault (CP-40-CR-00321-2014) and PWID and conspiracy (CP-40-CR-004435-2013).
- Originally sentenced on August 28, 2014 to an aggregate 102 to 152 months; he did not file post-sentence motions or direct appeal then.
- Paulino filed a timely PCRA petition alleging Alleyne error as to a mandatory minimum on the PWID count; Commonwealth concurred.
- On April 20, 2016 the court granted PCRA relief, vacated the mandatory minimum, and resentenced Count 1 (PWID) to a 12–24 month standard-range term; aggregate minimum reduced by one year.
- After procedural steps restoring his direct appeal rights via PCRA, counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal and raised sentencing and other claims; Paulino filed a pro se response.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found no abuse of discretion in sentencing, deemed other claims frivolous, and dismissed ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice to collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in resentencing Paulino | Paulino (via counsel) argued the sentence was excessive / discretionary-aspect review warranted | Court and Commonwealth: resentencing complied with Alleyne; sentence was within standard range and based on PSI and statements | No abuse of discretion; 12–24 months standard-range sentence affirmed |
| Whether an alleged negotiated 3–6 year plea promise was breached | Paulino contended a 3–6 year agreement existed and was not honored | Record did not support existence of such an agreement; Commonwealth denied | Claim frivolous; no relief granted |
| Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance | Paulino raised various IAC claims in pro se and Anders brief | Commonwealth and court: IAC claims are inappropriate on direct appeal absent narrow exceptions | IAC claims not addressed on direct appeal; dismissed without prejudice to collateral PCRA review |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements to withdraw | Counsel provided procedural/fact summary, discussed meritless issues, and supplied client notice letter | Paulino implied issues merited review | Court found Santiago/Anders requirements satisfied and permitted counsel to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for appellate counsel seeking withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury/subject to Apprendi/constitutional constraints)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard-range sentences with PSI are presumed appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009) (IAC claims generally not addressed on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders compliance and appellate review obligations)