Commonwealth v. Cartrette
83 A.3d 1030
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Cartrette pled guilty in 2004 to two counts of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and received a county IPP sentence (3 months jail, 3 months house arrest, 2.5 years probation).
- Probation authorities filed revocation proceedings after multiple arrests in Maryland for serious offenses; an amended revocation report alleged additional violent and motor-vehicle offenses.
- After serving time in Maryland, Cartrette admitted the IPP violations at an August 23, 2012 revocation hearing; the court revoked IPP and sentenced him to 1.5 to 5 years incarceration.
- Cartrette filed a post-sentence motion (denied) and appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and sought leave to withdraw.
- The Superior Court granted counsel’s withdrawal request, addressed whether the court may review discretionary sentencing claims after revocation en banc, and ultimately affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Cartrette's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court may review discretionary sentencing challenges following revocation of an IPP sentence | Cartrette argued the sentence was inappropriate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) (court failed to consider gravity, protection, rehabilitation) | Commonwealth argued appellate review after revocation is limited to validity of proceedings and legality of sentence (discretionary issues not reviewable) | Superior Court (en banc) held it may review discretionary sentencing claims after revocation and that historic precedents permitting such review control |
| Whether Cartrette preserved the discretionary-sentencing challenge | Cartrette included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement asserting § 9721 factors were ignored | Commonwealth noted Cartrette did not raise the discretionary claim in a post-sentence motion | Held: The claim presented a substantial question but was waived for failing to preserve it in the post-sentence motion; alternatively, the claim lacked merit on the record |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago withdrawal requirements | Counsel asserted the appeal was frivolous, provided the Anders brief, furnished copies to appellant, and advised appellant of rights | — | Held: Counsel satisfied procedural and substantive Anders/Santiago requirements and withdrawal was permitted |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable or unlawful | Cartrette argued sentence inconsistent with sentencing factors and rehabilitative needs | Trial court emphasized repeated criminal conduct while under supervision and explained its reasons on the record | Held: Even if reviewable, the sentence was not an abuse of discretion — court adequately considered § 9721 factors and justified incarceration under § 9771 criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for court‑appointed counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies content requirements for Anders briefs in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Jose Infante, 585 Pa. 408 (Pa. 2005) (discusses limits of Supreme Court jurisdiction over discretionary sentencing and distinguishes legality issues)
- Commonwealth v. Gilmore, 465 Pa. 202 (Pa. 1975) (held appeal after revocation is limited to validity of revocation proceedings and legality of sentence; read in historical context)
- Commonwealth v. Cottle, 493 Pa. 377 (Pa. 1981) (Supreme Court granted relief on revocation sentencing grounds and considered discretionary factors)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 592 Pa. 134 (Pa. 2007) (addressed counsel effectiveness re: sentencing objections and recognized appellate correction function)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion discussing distinctions between legality and discretionary sentencing questions)
- Commonwealth v. Wrona, 442 Pa. 201 (Pa. 1971) (discusses historical limits on appellate review of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa. 118 (Pa. 1976) (criticized narrow pre‑discretionary sentencing review and required consideration of individual circumstances)