Com. v. Roberts-Paladino, M.
1468 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Appellant Michael O. Roberts Paladino pled guilty (open plea) to multiple third-degree felony counts for distribution (3) and possession (10) of child pornography and criminal use of a communication facility, based on computer activity from Dec 24, 2014 to Feb 26, 2015.
- After an assessment hearing the trial court found Paladino a Sexually Violent Predator and sentenced him on July 29, 2015 to concurrent terms of 30 to 84 months' imprisonment on Counts 1–3, and concurrent seven-year probation terms on Counts 4–14 to run consecutive to the prison terms (aggregate 30–84 months plus seven years' probation).
- Counsel filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of the sentence on August 13, 2015; the trial court denied relief on August 26, 2015. The appeal followed, with procedural irregularities requiring remand for proper Anders/Rule 1925 compliance.
- Appellate counsel sought leave to withdraw under Anders and Santiago, filed an Anders brief and a Rule 1925(c)(4) statement, and provided notice to Paladino; the Superior Court conducted an independent review to decide whether any non-frivolous issues exist.
- The Anders brief raised three main issues: court jurisdiction, discretionary aspects of sentencing (arguing deviation from standard guideline ranges), and plea validity; counsel also noted an ineffectiveness-related claim about advice not to testify (not suitable for direct appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction | Paladino suggested lack of basis to challenge venue | Commonwealth: complaint and information recite Beaver County; courts of common pleas have statewide subject-matter jurisdiction | Frivolous — court had jurisdiction (Bethea governs) |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Paladino argued the 30–84 month terms exceeded the standard guideline range (6–14 months) without on-the-record reasons | Commonwealth/trial court: aggregate sentence fell within aggregate standard range; even so, sentencing challenge was waived by untimely post-sentence motion | Waived/frivolous — not reviewable on direct appeal due to untimely post-sentence motion (Rule 720) |
| Validity of guilty plea | Paladino asserted no apparent invalidity but questioned plea process | Commonwealth: plea process unchallenged in trial court; no contemporaneous objection or timely post-sentence challenge | Waived/frivolous — issue not preserved for direct appeal |
| Counsel's Anders withdrawal compliance | Counsel maintained he reviewed the record, furnished brief to client, and sought leave to withdraw | Paladino could seek new counsel or raise additional points; court required formal Rule 1925 filing | Court found substantial compliance with Anders/Santiago rules and granted leave to withdraw after independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for appointed counsel's withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (refining Anders requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Anders procedural requirements and waiver principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2003) (common pleas courts have statewide subject-matter jurisdiction under the Crimes Code)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to reach merits of discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues waived are frivolous on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not ripe on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. McBride, 957 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. 2008) (necessity of proper Rule 1925 filing for Anders counsel to withdraw)