Com. v. Washington, R.
128 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Rickey Washington had two probation sentences (CP-15-CR-0000335-2008 and CP-15-CR-0003534-2008) revoked; the trial court imposed an aggregate revocation sentence of 6 to 23 months (concurrent).
- At the same time the court imposed a new aggregate state sentence of 9.5 to 20 years for separate convictions (burglary, aggravated assault, fleeing/eluding, and related offenses).
- The court credited Washington for time served and immediately paroled him on the revocation sentences so he could begin serving the state sentence and access rehabilitative programs.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising only a discretionary-sentencing challenge to the revocation sentence.
- Washington did not file any pro se or counseled response to the Anders brief after being given leave to do so.
- The Superior Court conducted independent review and affirmed the revocation sentence, concluding no non-frivolous issues existed and granting counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary aspects of the revocation sentence were improper | Washington argued the court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors and that the sentence was excessive given timing relative to new convictions | Trial court and Commonwealth argued the sentence was within sentencing discretion, concurrent, within guideline ranges, credited time served, and structured to allow immediate parole and program access | Court held no abuse of discretion; discretionary challenge lacked merit and did not raise a substantial question |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders withdrawal requirements | Washington impliedly contended counsel’s representation warranted review | Counsel argued she complied with Anders/Santiago procedures and informed Washington of rights; no response from Washington | Court found counsel complied with Anders requirements and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently examine the record for frivolousness)
- Simmons v. Commonwealth, 56 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discretionary sentencing challenges treated as petitions for permission to appeal)
- Edwards v. Commonwealth, 71 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to reach merits of discretionary-sentencing claim)
- Bynum-Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (what constitutes a substantial question about sentencing)
- Tuladziecki v. Commonwealth, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (Rule 2119(f) concise statement for sentencing appeals)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standards for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- McClendon v. Commonwealth, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders-related precedent)
- Lilley v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review of discretionary claims where Anders brief filed)
- Pasture v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (sentencing guidelines do not apply to revocation sentences)