Com. v. Stoudt, A.
427 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Alfred Stoudt had prior convictions: (1) 2002 guilty plea for three counts of theft by deception with sentence including 14 years probation (docket 2416-02); (2) 2015 guilty pleas to indecent assault and stalking with 364–729 days incarceration and 5 years probation (docket 690-14).
- New sexual-offense conviction and related requirements (SORNA Tier II reporting) triggered probation violations of the earlier 2002 sentence.
- Between 2015–2016 Stoudt admitted multiple technical violations (failure to attend required sex-offender treatment), prompting Gagnon II revocation proceedings.
- On February 13, 2017 the court found violations, revoked parole on part 1 of 690-14 (recommitted to maximum), imposed 1–3 years on part 2 of stalking, and concurrently imposed 1–3 years on the 2002 docket.
- Appellant filed post-sentence motions (denied) and timely appeals; counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; appellant filed no pro se brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation sentence was manifestly excessive | Stoudt: sentence excessive given technical nature of violations | Court/Commonwealth: sentence justified by violation history and need to vindicate authority | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentencing court failed to consider §9721(b) factors | Stoudt: court ignored rehabilitative needs, age, health | Court: considered those factors (was familiar with case, heard allocution) | Affirmed — record shows consideration of factors |
| Whether total confinement after revocation violated §9771(c) | Stoudt: elderly, ill, no new crime, unlikely to reoffend, confinement not essential | Commonwealth: confinement permissible to vindicate court authority given repeated noncompliance | Affirmed — §9771(c) criteria satisfied (vindication/authority) |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Stoudt: (no brief filed) claims counsel insufficient | Counsel: complied with Anders/Santiago (petition, brief, notice to client) | Grant withdrawal; appellate court independently reviewed record and found appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state guidance on Anders compliance for appointed counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2013) (scope of review from revocation includes discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (standards for raising substantial question in discretionary-sentencing appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (record-as-a-whole must reflect consideration of sentencing factors)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate court must independently evaluate record when counsel seeks withdrawal)