Com. v. Stallsmith, R.
Com. v. Stallsmith, R. No. 828 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- Appellant Randy Scott Stallsmith was cited for multiple motor-vehicle offenses and pled guilty on May 4, 2016 to driving with a suspended license (his 22nd such offense); other charges were nolle prossed.
- At plea, Stallsmith acknowledged potential exposure to 30 days–6 months incarceration for the suspended-license charge.
- At sentencing (May 17, 2016), the court reviewed his extensive history (21 prior suspended-license citations), heard testimony in mitigation, denied work release, and imposed a standard-range sentence of 3 to 6 months’ incarceration.
- Stallsmith filed a motion for reconsideration seeking work release; the court denied it and he timely appealed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, identifying and briefed one arguable issue: whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and not individualized.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found the Anders requirements satisfied, concluded the appeal was frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence’s discretionary aspects are appealable as manifestly excessive | Stallsmith: sentence was excessive, not individualized; denial of work release unreasonable | Commonwealth: sentence within guideline range, based on repeated suspended-license history and proper discretion | Court: No substantial question presented; sentence within guidelines and not clearly unreasonable; appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements for appointed counsel to withdraw on appeal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pa. specific Anders requirements for counsel’s brief and withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-part test and substantial-question standard for discretionary-sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (evaluation of what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing issues)