Com. v. Paullman, L.
Com. v. Paullman, L. No. 464 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Paullman pled guilty to burglary (May 17, 2012) and received 11.5–23 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation; he later violated probation and was re‑sentenced to same term plus 5 years probation.
- While still serving the burglary sentence, Paullman pled guilty to receiving stolen property (Oct. 30, 2014) and received 3–23 months plus 3 years probation; the court re‑sentenced the burglary count; sentences to run concurrently.
- On January 7, 2016, after a probation‑violation hearing the court found technical violations of both probationary sentences (including a positive cocaine test and leaving court‑ordered treatment) and imposed concurrent 1.5–3 year prison terms for each violation.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising a single issue: whether the post‑revocation sentence was excessive.
- The Superior Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago procedures, independently reviewed the record, and addressed the discretionary‑sentencing claim despite preservation defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence after probation revocation was excessive | Paullman argued the 1.5–3 year confinement was manifestly excessive | Trial court argued confinement was justified by Paullman’s criminal history, repeated probation/parole violations, substance use, and failure of treatment/probation | Court held no abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state standards for an Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (failure to file post‑sentence motion waives discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court must show record consideration of offender/crime when revoking probation)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (affirming confinement after probation revocation where probation failed to rehabilitate defendant)