Com. v. Spess, M., 444 MDA 2017

On June 3, 2016, Michael J. Spess fled a home with the homeowners’ credit cards, watches, jewelry, and a gun; police arrested him shortly thereafter while he possessed the gun.
Spess entered open guilty pleas to burglary and theft by unlawful taking and was sentenced December 15, 2016 to concurrent terms of 12 to 30 months’ imprisonment on each count (within the standard guideline range).
Spess filed a timely post-sentence motion arguing the sentence was excessive and claiming (1) pre-sentence jail credit issues, (2) insufficient weight given to his limited criminal history and employment potential in county custody, and (3) family considerations (two young children).
The post-sentence motion was denied (order February 21, 2017); Spess appealed. Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous.
The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s Anders submission, conducted an independent review of the record, and determined the sentencing challenge to be frivolous; it affirmed the judgment of sentence and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Issue	Spess’s Argument	Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing 12–30 months’ imprisonment	Sentence excessive/unreasonable: lack of pretrial credit in this docket, insufficient weight to limited criminal history and rehabilitation potential, family hardship; county sentence preferable	Sentence was within the standard guideline range; court had PSR and was presumed to have considered all relevant information	Affirmed. No abuse of discretion; challenge deemed frivolous and not a substantial question warranting relief

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for appointed counsel seeking withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders briefing requirements clarified for Pennsylvania appellate counsel)
Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel seeks withdrawal under Anders)
Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural guidance on Anders petitions and appellate review)
Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for reviewing discretionary sentencing challenges)
Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (requirements to invoke appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSR and relevant information)
Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors generally does not present a substantial question)
Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2014) (guilty plea waives all claims except jurisdiction, plea validity, and legality of sentence)