Com. v. Wayne, D.
Com. v. Wayne, D. No. 3228 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Derek Wayne was convicted after a bench trial (March 13, 2012) of aggravated assault, robbery, retail theft, possessing an instrument of crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person for cutting two Rite Aid employees with a box cutter during a theft.
- Court imposed concurrent terms of 2–4 years’ incarceration on aggravated assault and robbery, followed by six years’ probation; Wayne was paroled May 13, 2013.
- While on supervision, Wayne committed new offenses in Berks County (drug possession and retail theft), pled guilty in Berks, and received additional sentences.
- The Philadelphia trial court revoked Wayne’s probation on September 19, 2014 and imposed 1–2 years’ incarceration on the aggravated assault count, consecutive to parole and Berks County sentences.
- Wayne filed a motion to reconsider the sentence (Sept. 29, 2014) that the court did not rule on; he timely appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wayne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court erred in finding probation/parole violation | Court: revocation proper because Wayne committed new crimes while under supervision | Wayne contended revocation was improper | Court held revocation proper; new convictions justified termination of supervision |
| 2. Legality of sentence | Court: sentence within permissible range and lawful | Wayne argued sentence was illegal | Court held sentence legal; no merit to legality challenge |
| 3. Denial of allocution | Court: allocution was permitted and heard | Wayne claimed he was not allowed to allocute before sentence | Court found notes show Wayne was heard; claim denied |
| 4. Trial court’s failure to rule on motion to reconsider | Commonwealth argued motion was boilerplate excessiveness claim lacking substantial question | Wayne argued court’s failure to act was error | Court treated motion as boilerplate; no substantial question; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (procedural step: court must assess request to withdraw before merits)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (notice and client letter requirements when filing Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court’s duty to independently review record after Anders compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Ware, 737 A.2d 251 (Pa. Super. 1999) (probation may be revoked for crimes committed during parole)
- Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21 (Pa. 2014) (standards for revocation and permissible sentencing upon probation revocation)
- Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251 (Pa. Super. 2003) (when boilerplate excessiveness allegations may present a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 721 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. 1998) (jurisdictional limits on modifying sentence post-appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders brief compliance standards)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Millisock compliance and client copy of Anders brief)
Judgment of sentence affirmed; counsel’s petition to withdraw granted.