Com. v. Sexton, A., Com. v. Sexton, A. No. 268 EDA 2017

Alexandra Sexton pled guilty to acquiring a controlled substance by misrepresentation and was placed into treatment court and probation in July 2014.
She was later terminated from treatment court and resentenced to county intermediate punishment and ordered into a long-term treatment program in July 2015.
Sexton violated her intermediate punishment in June 2016 (positive drug screen and unpaid costs); the court considered placement in State Intermediate Punishment (SIP) but she initially declined evaluation and later refused entry despite encouragement from the court.
At sentencing following violation stipulations, the trial court imposed 4 to 8 years’ incarceration (within the guideline standard range) on November 15, 2016, vacated that sentence pending post-sentence relief, and reimposed the same sentence on December 16, 2016.
Counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal on direct appeal; Sexton did not file a response. The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and performed independent review for non-frivolous issues.
The Superior Court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in resentencing after revocation and that the record showed consideration of rehabilitative needs and other sentencing factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 4–8 years’ incarceration was harsh and excessive	Appellant argued sentence was excessive given severe drug addiction and rehabilitative needs	Commonwealth and trial court argued sentence was within statutory/guideline range and refusal of SIP justified confinement	Court held no substantial question or abuse of discretion; sentence within standard range and record shows consideration of rehab needs
Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago	N/A (procedural)	Counsel sought permission to withdraw after concluding appeal frivolous and complied with procedural requirements	Court found counsel satisfied Anders/Santiago requirements and allowed withdrawal

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state requirements for Anders briefs)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural mandates for Anders withdrawal and standards on revocation sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Melius, 100 A.3d 682 (Pa. Super. 2014) (intermediate punishment revocation treated like probation revocation)
Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (record must reflect consideration of crime and offender when revoking probation)