Y.R. v. A.J.J.
94 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Victim obtained a final PFA on Nov. 3, 2015 prohibiting Appellant (A.J.J.) from contacting or abusing her, evicting him, and barring firearms possession; PFA initially set to expire Nov. 3, 2018.
- Aug. 15, 2016: Appellant grabbed Victim’s hair and struck her; pleaded guilty to indirect criminal contempt on Aug. 30, 2016 and received six months intermediate punishment; PFA expiration extended to Aug. 30, 2019.
- Nov. 20, 2016: While serving the intermediate sentence, Appellant entered Victim’s home, punched her, threatened to kill her, and took her keys; arrested and charged with indirect criminal contempt.
- Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the Nov. 20 violation on Dec. 8, 2016 and was sentenced to six months’ incarceration.
- Appellant filed post-sentence motion and timely appeal; appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, arguing the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The Superior Court conducted independent review, concluded the discretionary-sentencing challenge did not present a substantial question, and affirmed the judgment of sentence and granted counsel permission to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing 6 months’ incarceration after a guilty plea | Six months is excessive; court should have imposed 3 months as recommended by both Commonwealth and defense at sentencing | Sentence was within statutory limits, justified by the second PFA violation committed while Appellant was serving punishment; court considered record and law | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; appellate review found the claim frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s duties when seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders briefing requirements for court‑appointed counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirements for raising discretionary sentencing claims on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (a bald assertion of excessiveness does not present a substantial question)