Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton
135 A.3d 179
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Aaron Maurice Bynum-Hamilton was found to have violated parole and probation after a September 3, 2014 video revocation hearing; violations included missed reporting, positive drug tests, and new violent criminal charges in Chester County (including aggravated assault/attempted homicide).
- The trial court ordered revocation of multiple Lancaster County dockets and directed a presentence investigation (PSI) that included jail-credit calculations.
- At the June 5, 2015 revocation sentencing, the court had the PSI, considered defense counsel’s arguments (including Appellant’s bipolar diagnosis and request for concurrent time), and Appellant declined to speak.
- The court resentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 7 to 15 years’ incarceration, with specified credit for prior confinement and concurrency with a Chester County sentence.
- Appellant filed a post-sentence motion (denied) and a timely appeal. Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw. The Commonwealth did not file a substantive brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate 7–15 year sentence was excessive (discretionary aspects) | Sentencing excessive given mental-health history and request for concurrency or termination of county supervision | Court argued need for total confinement: prior noncompliance, violent offenses, recidivism, failure of probation to rehabilitate | No abuse of discretion; reasons stated on record supported confinement and vindication of court authority |
| Whether court failed to state appeal rights on the record | Not asserted by Commonwealth | Counsel noted court did not recite appeal-rights; defense counsel timely filed post-sentence motion and appeal for Appellant | Failure to state rights on record found not prejudicial because counsel informed Appellant and timely preserved appeal |
| Whether Anders counsel complied with procedural requirements to withdraw | N/A (appellate counsel contended appeal frivolous) | Appellate counsel filed petition, Anders brief, and notified Appellant of rights to retain new counsel or proceed pro se | Court found counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements and conducted independent review; withdrawal granted |
| Whether sentencing court complied with statutory requirements on record when resentencing after revocation | N/A | Appellant argued sentencing defects (implicit) | Court satisfied 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721/9771 requirements by stating reasons on record and relying on PSI; no ground to vacate sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw to file brief showing appeal is frivolous and notify client)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania-specific requirements for Anders briefs and counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Anders brief review may proceed absent a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test to invoke review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 418 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 1980) (sentencing reasons should reflect consideration of Sentencing Code criteria and offender’s character)