Com. v. Roth, C.
Com. v. Roth, C. No. 999 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Carl A. Roth pleaded guilty to theft by unlawful taking (one count) and multiple sexual offenses involving a 6‑year‑old (IDSI, attempt to rape a child, indecent assault, corruption of minors) arising from events in summer 2014.
- Sentencing (May 25, 2016): aggregate 16–32 years’ imprisonment plus 5 years probation; restitution of $36,822 jointly and severally on the theft count; some counts were ordered consecutive, others concurrent.
- No post‑sentence motion was filed; a timely notice of appeal was filed and new counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
- Trial court’s on‑the‑record advisement mischaracterized appellate procedure, suggesting the defendant could bypass filing a post‑sentence motion and directly challenge discretionary sentencing on appeal.
- Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement generically alleged the trial court abused its discretion without specifics; the trial court found waiver for vagueness but the Superior Court reviewed the claim because of the Anders filing and the trial court’s misadvice.
- Superior Court concluded the claim lacked merit: sentence was within guideline range, supported by PSI and the court’s stated reasons (breach of trust, lack of remorse, expert opinion of sexually violent predator, danger to society).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary‑aspect of sentencing | Commonwealth: sentence was proper and supported by record and PSI | Roth: trial court abused its discretion in sentencing (claimed generally) | Held: no substantial question; sentence within guidelines and court explained reasons; claim frivolous |
| Waiver of sentencing claim for failure to file post‑sentence motion | Commonwealth: objection waived because not raised at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion | Roth: trial court misadvised him that he could bypass post‑sentence motion and appeal directly | Held: court found misadvice and declined to find waiver on that basis |
| Adequacy of Rule 1925(b) statement | Commonwealth/trial court: Roth’s concise statement was too vague to preserve issues | Roth: attempted to raise abuse of discretion generally | Held: trial court noted vagueness but Superior Court reviewed merits due to Anders principles and trial court misadvice |
| Counsel’s request to withdraw under Anders | Commonwealth (through counsel): appeal frivolous, petition to withdraw meets Anders requirements | Roth: no pro se response contesting withdrawal | Held: Superior Court found Anders requirements satisfied, performed independent review, granted withdrawal, affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal to follow procedures and provide brief showing frivolity)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders procedure applied in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (articulates specifics for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court misadvice of post‑sentence rights can excuse waiver)
- Commonwealth v. McNear, 852 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirements for raising discretionary sentencing challenges and substantial question doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 1997) (sentences within guideline range generally do not present a substantial question)