Com. v. Schell, D.
Com. v. Schell, D. No. 912 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Dennis Schell pled guilty (Dec. 13, 2012) to four robbery counts, including robbery of a financial institution; initial sentence (Mar. 18, 2013) was three mandatory consecutive 5–10 year terms (aggregate 15–30 years).
- No direct appeal initially; Schell obtained collateral relief under the PCRA to reinstate post-sentence rights nunc pro tunc, appealed, and the Superior Court previously affirmed his sentence (2015).
- Schell later filed a pro se PCRA raising an Alleyne challenge to mandatory sentences; the PCRA court granted relief and ordered resentencing.
- On May 18, 2016 the trial court resentenced Schell to three consecutive non-mandatory 5–10 year terms (aggregate 15–30 years); post‑sentence motions were denied.
- Counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief asserting the appeal is frivolous and raised two discretionary-sentencing issues (excessiveness and failure to weigh mitigation); counsel requested leave to withdraw.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, concluded the Anders requirements were met, found the sentencing claims did not present a substantial question, and affirmed the judgment while granting counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schell) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15–30 year sentence is excessive | Sentence is unduly harsh and excessive for three robbery convictions | Sentence is within statutory limits and appropriate after resentencing | Court held no substantial question; claim meritless; affirmed |
| Whether court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (health, good prison conduct, veteran status, mental health, medication error) | Mitigating factors were inadequately considered, warranting a reduced sentence | Allegations of inadequate consideration do not raise a substantial question when sentence is within statutory bounds | Court held such claims do not raise a substantial question; appeal frivolous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (established counsel’s procedure for withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief must meet specified PA procedural/content requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa.Super. 2005) (counsel must provide Anders brief and specific client notice letter)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (sentence within statutory limits generally does not raise a substantial question on excessiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super. 2010) (claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors generally does not raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa.Super. 2013) (bald assertion of excessiveness insufficient to invoke review)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa.Super. 2012) (defining when a substantial question exists under sentencing code)