Com. v. Ramsey, M.
1348 MDA 2018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 25, 2019Background:
- Appellant Marquise Lamar Ramsey pleaded guilty in Aug. 2015 to Prohibited Offensive Weapons and received 3 years probation.
- While on probation, he was arrested and charged in Nov. 2017 with multiple offenses; in July 2018 he pled guilty to Persons Not to Possess Firearms and received 3–10 years’ incarceration.
- At a July 18, 2018 VOP hearing Ramsey admitted violating probation; the court revoked probation and imposed a VOP sentence of 6 months to 4 years.
- The VOP sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the 3–10 year sentence from the new conviction.
- Ramsey filed a post-sentence motion challenging consecutive service; the court denied it, he appealed, and counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by ordering the VOP sentence to run consecutive rather than concurrent | Ramsey argued the consecutive order was improper and should be concurrent | Commonwealth and trial court asserted sentencing discretion supported consecutive imposition and it was within statutory discretion | Court held the challenge was frivolous, no substantial question raised; affirmed consecutive sentence and granted counsel's Anders withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (imposition of consecutive vs concurrent sentences ordinarily does not raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (only extreme circumstances make consecutive sentences a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences within guidelines raise a substantial question only in limited circumstances)