Com. v. Tillman, R.
Com. v. Tillman, R. No. 2548 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- On July 22, 2013, Ronron Tillman (appellant) fired a gun during a fight: Rafael Gonzalez Sr. was seriously wounded (survived) and Anthony Pizarro Lopez was fatally shot; multiple eyewitnesses identified Tillman as the shooter.
- Tillman was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to prior felony drug convictions and was wanted on bench warrants at the time.
- Tillman entered an open guilty plea on December 8, 2014 to third-degree murder, attempted murder, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; the Commonwealth nolle prossed additional charges including first-degree murder.
- At sentencing on March 27, 2015, the court imposed consecutive terms: 20–40 years (third-degree murder), 10–20 years (attempted murder), and 5–10 years (firearm), aggregating 35–70 years.
- Appellant filed a timely motion to reconsider and a notice of appeal; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. The trial court had prepared a Rule 1925(a) opinion; counsel failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found the discretionary-sentencing challenge frivolous, granted counsel’s withdrawal under Anders, and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the aggregate 35–70 year sentence was an abuse of discretion (discretionary aspects of sentencing) | Tillman argued the sentence was excessive and consecutive terms were improper | Commonwealth/trial court argued sentence was within discretion, informed by PSI and plea facts; appellant faced greater exposure absent plea | Court held appellant failed to raise a substantial question; challenge frivolous; sentence affirmed and Anders withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for appointed counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- McClendon v. Commonwealth, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (state precedent on Anders practice)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements in Pennsylvania)
- McNear v. Commonwealth, 852 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing requirement to present a substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)
- Griffin v. Commonwealth, 804 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (when remand for Rule 1925 issues is unnecessary)