Com. v. Rucker, B.
3401 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Appellant Blair Rucker pled guilty to retail theft (misdemeanor) in two dockets and received negotiated sentences (one month to 23 months; time served to 23 months).
- Rucker violated parole on both cases and, after stipulating to violations at a Gagnon II hearing on October 21, 2015, the court revoked parole and ordered him to serve full back time: 524 days (Dkt. 6507-2013) and 583 days (Dkt. 4508-2014), to run concurrently.
- Counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief seeking withdrawal, identifying only a challenge to the appropriateness of the sentence (grading of the offense and unconsidered mental illness).
- The Superior Court first reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders and Santiago withdrawal procedures and found substantial compliance.
- The court evaluated whether the sentencing claims were cognizable in a parole-revocation appeal and determined they were not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in revoking parole or in the sentence imposed on parole revocation | Rucker argued the underlying offense was graded lower (misdemeanor 3rd) and the court failed to consider his severe mental illness when ordering full back time | Commonwealth argued revocation results in recommitment to the original sentence; discretionary sentencing arguments are not cognizable on parole-revocation appeal | Court held that challenges to sentence severity or failure to consider mitigating factors are improper in a parole-revocation appeal; affirmed recommitment and granted counsel leave to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (procedural protections for parole revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 632 A.2d 934 (Pa. Super. 1993) (parole revocation recommits defendant to the original sentence; court cannot impose a new sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parole-revocation appeals cannot raise discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements in Pennsylvania)