Com. v. Taylor, A.
Com. v. Taylor, A. No. 2533 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Anthony N. Taylor pled guilty (open plea) to person not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105).
- At sentencing (July 14, 2016) the trial court imposed 5 to 10 years’ incarceration (standard-range sentence).
- Trial counsel filed a timely appeal and an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- The court evaluated whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and whether any non-frivolous issues existed on appeal.
- Taylor submitted a pro se response asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing; he also argued the sentence was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 5–10 year sentence is excessive / abuse of discretion | Taylor: sentence harsh because court failed to weigh mitigating factors (rehabilitation intent, drug problems) | Trial court: considered PSI, substance evaluation, Taylor’s statements, criminal history, employment; sentence is within standard range | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders to permit withdrawal | Counsel: performed conscientious review, filed Anders brief explaining frivolity, notified Taylor of rights | Commonwealth/Court: must independently review record to confirm frivolity | Counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago; court permits withdrawal |
| Whether discretionary-sentencing claim preserved | Taylor: challenges sentencing (timely appeal) | Commonwealth: claim not preserved—no objection at sentencing or post-sentence motion | Claim was waived for preservation, but court reviewed merits under Anders requirement |
| Whether ineffective assistance claim may be raised on direct appeal | Taylor (pro se): alleges ineffective assistance at sentencing | Commonwealth/Court: ineffectiveness normally raised in collateral review (PCRA) | Ineffectiveness not addressed on direct appeal; should be raised collaterally |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds of frivolous appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test and standard for raising discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 923 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 2007) (failure to file post-sentence motion waives discretionary sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (presumption that sentencing court considered relevant factors when it reviews PSI)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard-range sentence is generally appropriate under the Sentencing Code)