Com. v. Salter, M., 121 A.3d 1144

On Jan 29, 2014, police responded to a domestic dispute at Michael Salter’s residence; the victim did not want charges but consented to officers entering, who smelled marijuana and found two potted marijuana plants and a digital scale. Salter left driving the girlfriend’s car; his license was suspended.
Commonwealth charged Salter with possession with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, driving while operating privilege suspended, and three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia; later information filed March 24, 2014.
On Sept. 9, 2014, Salter pleaded guilty to one count each of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia; remaining counts were nolle prossed.
Sentencing that day: aggregate 18 months county probation, 20 hours community service, fines and costs; Salter did not file a post-sentence motion or object at sentencing to the discretionary aspects of the sentence.
Counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief and a petition to withdraw, arguing the appeal is frivolous and raising one issue: that the sentence was manifestly excessive and conflicted with sentencing objectives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Salter’s sentence is manifestly excessive and conflicts with objectives of the Sentencing Code	Commonwealth: sentencing court acted within discretion; no relief warranted	Salter: probation term conflicts with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) objectives and court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (fatherhood, education, employment, only two plants)	Court: appeal frivolous; Salter failed to raise a substantial question and court did not abuse sentencing discretion; judgment of sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requires Anders brief to explain counsel’s reasons for concluding appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (court must independently review merits after Anders compliance)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-sentencing claims must be raised post-sentence or at sentencing or are waived)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claim that court failed to weigh mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question alone)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard that sentencing review requires abuse of discretion to overturn)