Com. v. Peebles, K.
Com. v. Peebles, K. No. 72 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 4, 2017Background
- Appellant Kevin Paul Peebles, a Tier III registered sex offender, completed SORNA registration in Berks County on October 26, 2015 but failed to disclose a Facebook account.
- He pleaded guilty (open plea) to failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1(a)(3)).
- At sentencing (with a PSI), the court imposed 54 months to 10 years’ imprisonment (mitigated range).
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc claiming the sentence was excessive and that the court failed to adequately consider remorse and lack of wrongful intent; additional arguments were raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders/Santiago; the Superior Court reviewed the record independently, concluded the appeal was frivolous, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence (54 mo. to 10 yrs.) was manifestly excessive and violated sentencing norms | Peebles: sentence was too severe; court failed to fully consider remorse, lack of wrongful intent (confusion about SORNA questions), and mitigating factors | Trial Court/Commonwealth: court considered PSI, allocution, remorse, guidelines, and imposed mitigated-range sentence; many asserted claims were not preserved | Affirmed — no relief; sentence within mitigated range and record shows factors were considered |
| Whether the appeal presents non-frivolous issues permitting counsel to remain on appeal | Peebles: raised discretionary sentencing claims | Appellate counsel: after review, concluded issues were wholly frivolous and filed Anders brief and withdrawal petition | Anders withdrawal granted; court performed independent review and found appeal frivolous |
| Whether Packingham v. North Carolina undermines criminality of failing to disclose social-media accounts | Peebles: (implicit concern about social-media restrictions) | Court: Packingham struck a broad ban on access to social networks; Pennsylvania law instead criminalizes failure to provide accurate registration information, not access to social media | Packingham not controlling here; statute punished false/omitted registration info, not access ban |
| Whether certain sentencing claims were waived by failure to preserve them properly | Peebles: raised additional factors in Rule 1925(b) | Commonwealth: many claims were not preserved at sentencing or in timely post-sentence motion, so waived | Held waived where not raised in post-sentence motion; Rule 1925(b) did not cure preservation failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty and procedure for withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.) (clarifies Anders briefing requirements for court-appointed counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super.) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel seeks withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super.) (PSI creates presumption sentencing court considered relevant mitigating information)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super.) (claims that court failed to consider factors implicate discretionary sentencing review but generally do not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super.) (discretionary-sentencing objections waived if not raised at sentencing or in a timely motion)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super.) (Rule 1925(b) cannot cure preservation defects)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa.) (explains when an allegation that sentence is excessive raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super.) (four-part test for addressing discretionary aspects of sentencing)