Com. v. Wallace, D.
Com. v. Wallace, D. No. 1160 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Dantes E. Wallace pled guilty to Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Delivery of a Controlled Substance after a controlled buy of crack cocaine. Other charges were withdrawn in exchange for the plea.
- Sentenced on October 16, 2015 to five years Restrictive Intermediate Punishment (three months incarceration, three months house arrest) and ordered into Veteran’s Treatment Court with drug/alcohol conditions.
- Tested positive for marijuana in February 2016 and for alcohol in March 2016; detained; Probation Violation Petition filed May 23, 2016; Appellant stipulated to the violations on June 15, 2016.
- The court revoked probation and imposed one to two years’ incarceration followed by two years’ supervised probation; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and application to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous; the Superior Court conducted an independent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary aspects of the sentence are appealable | Wallace: sentence is excessive and inappropriate because violations flowed from addiction; court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and public-protection rationale | Commonwealth/Trial Court: sentence is within statutory limits and appropriate after probation revocation; no substantial question presented | Superior Court: No substantial question raised; appeal frivolous; counsel’s withdrawal granted; judgment of sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (details Anders-type brief requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (additional obligations when counsel seeks withdrawal on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claims that court failed to consider rehabilitative needs generally do not present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing appellate review)