Com. v. Stark, D.
1469 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- Dustin L. Stark was on probation (60 months) after a July 6, 2015 sentence; the Commonwealth filed a probation revocation petition on Jan. 29, 2016.
- At a continued hearing on Sept. 8, 2016, Stark and the Commonwealth stipulated that he had violated probation.
- The trial court revoked probation and resentenced Stark to concurrent terms: 18–60 months for third‑degree felony criminal trespass and 6–12 months for possession of drug paraphernalia; credit was given for time served from Nov. 19, 2015. The revocation sentences ran concurrent to a separate 2.5–5 year sentence for a June 24, 2016 conviction for persons not to possess firearms.
- Stark filed a post‑sentence motion (Sept. 14, 2016), which was denied (Sept. 30, 2016), and timely appealed.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; Stark did not file a pro se or new counseled brief. The Superior Court conducted an independent review per Anders/Santiago.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation and imposing an aggregate 18–60 month incarceration | Commonwealth argued revocation was supported by the stipulated violation and sentencing discretion (probation revoked; confinement permitted where future risk or new conviction exists) | Stark argued the revocation sentence was unreasonably excessive, an abuse of discretion, and too severe | Court held Stark’s bald claim did not raise a substantial question; alternatively, court found no abuse of discretion — revocation and confinement were warranted given prior convictions, substance abuse history, and a June 2016 firearms conviction; sentences run concurrently and fully explained on record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requiring counsel to advise appellate court when an appeal is frivolous and to provide appellant notice and opportunity to respond)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standard for Anders briefs and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review the record when counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders/Santiago)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for revocation sentencing and when total confinement is permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for raising discretionary sentencing claims on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (a bald assertion of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review)