Com. v. Sappington, J., 1622 EDA 2017

In 2010 Sappington pled guilty to multiple child pornography counts, dissemination of child pornography, and criminal use of a communication facility; aggregate sentence included months of imprisonment and probation.
After earlier probation violations and resentencing in 2012, Sappington remained subject to probation and treatment conditions restricting contact with minors.
In 2017 probation officer learned Sappington had weekly unsupervised dinners at his parents’ home for 4–5 months while minor siblings were present, without approval.
Court held a probation-violation (VOP) hearing, revoked Sappington’s probation, and on April 18, 2017 resentenced him to 9–23 months’ imprisonment (with parole upon completion of sex-offender treatment) plus two years’ probation.
Appellant filed a timely appeal; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, arguing any appeal would be frivolous; Sappington filed no pro se brief.
The Superior Court concluded counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago, reviewed the discrete sentencing issue, found Sappington’s challenge waived for lack of preservation, and otherwise found no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Sappington's Argument	Commonwealth/Court's Argument	Held
Whether incarcerating Sappington for violating probation that involved unsupervised contact with minors was inappropriately severe	Sentence was excessive because violation was non-violent, non-physical, and unrelated to original child-pornography offenses	Violation involved repeated, unauthorized contact with minors while in treatment and in violation of probation conditions; sentence within court’s discretion and recommended by probation officer and Commonwealth	Appeal waived for failure to preserve at sentencing/post-sentence motion; in any event court did not abuse its discretion — sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duties when seeking to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders requirements under Pennsylvania law)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review after probation revocation)
Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing after probation revocation is discretionary)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for discretionary-aspect sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Hartman, 908 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 2006) (preservation rules for discretionary-aspect sentencing challenges)