Com. v. Thomas, B., Com. v. Thomas, B. No. 3169 EDA 2016

Barry Thomas was convicted in Philadelphia County of Possession, Possession With Intent to Deliver (marijuana), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
On September 20, 2016 the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 to 36 months’ incarceration (standard-range under guidelines) and 5 years’ reporting probation.
Thomas filed a post-sentence motion challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence; the trial court denied relief and Thomas timely appealed.
Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California and filed an Anders brief arguing the sentence overstated Thomas’s criminal record given the long gap since his prior conviction (2003).
The Superior Court conducted the required Anders/McClendon/Santiago procedures, performed an independent review under Flowers, and addressed whether the discretionary-sentencing claim presented a substantial question.
The Superior Court concluded the challenge was frivolous, found no non-frivolous appellate issues, affirmed the judgment of sentence, and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discretionary aspects of sentence are appealable because the sentence overstated prior record due to long gap since prior conviction	Thomas: court abused discretion and overstated criminality by failing to account for long interval since 2003 conviction	Commonwealth: sentence was within guidelines; Thomas’s bald assertion of excessiveness fails to raise a substantial question	Court: No substantial question; claim frivolous. Affirmed sentence and permitted counsel to withdraw

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania-specific Anders procedure)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (independent appellate review requirement following Anders)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)