Com. v. Stevens, J.
252 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Joseph Anthony Stevens entered open guilty pleas to multiple counts of access device fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and receiving stolen property arising from unauthorized use of stolen credit cards in December 2015.
- Sentences on three separate docket numbers were imposed to run consecutively, producing an aggregate term of 66 to 132 months' imprisonment.
- Stevens filed post-sentence motions claiming the sentence was "too harsh and severe;" the trial court denied relief, finding the individual sentences within the standard guideline ranges.
- On appeal, counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) notice of intent to file an Anders brief, then submitted an Anders/Santiago brief and a petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising only a discretionary-sentencing claim (excessiveness/consecutive sentences).
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel's compliance with Anders and Santiago, conducted an independent review of the record, and considered whether the discretionary-sentencing challenge raised a substantial question warranting merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 66–132 month sentence is excessive because sentences ran consecutively | Stevens: sentence is harsh/excessive given acceptance of responsibility and drug addiction mitigation | Commonwealth/Trial Court: sentences were within standard guideline ranges; consecutive sentences were a proper exercise of discretion | Court: No substantial question raised; even if considered, no abuse of discretion—sentences affirmed |
| Whether counsel satisfied Anders/Santiago requirements to withdraw | Stevens (by counsel): filed Anders brief asserting frivolity of appeal | Appellate Court: reviewed counsel's petition and brief for compliance with procedural/substantive Anders/Santiago requirements | Court: Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago; petition to withdraw granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requires Anders brief to summarize history, cite record support, state frivolity conclusion and reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discrete discretionary-sentencing challenges and when consecutive sentences raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (imposition of consecutive vs. concurrent sentences ordinarily does not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (where sentencing court had a PSI and sentence is within guideline range, sentence is presumed appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Stradley, 50 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (guilty plea waives most challenges except plea validity, jurisdiction, and legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d 1044 (Pa. Super. 2011) (defendant entering a guilty plea is presumed aware of the plea's nature)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural requirements for appellate review of Anders filings)
- Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (procedural steps counsel must take to withdraw under Anders)