Com. v. Davis, J. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-S63044-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,            :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :            PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee               :
    :
    v.                            :
    :
    JAMES A. DAVIS,                          :
    :
    Appellant              :           No. 1305 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 2, 2015
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County,
    Criminal Division, No. CP-64-CR-0000430-2014
    BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:                    FILED DECEMBER 07, 2015
    James A. Davis (“Davis”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
    imposed following his guilty plea to receiving stolen property.      See 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a).    Additionally, Richard B. Henry, Esquire (“Henry”),
    Davis’s counsel, has filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel and an
    accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744
    (1967). We grant Henry’s Petition to Withdraw and affirm Davis’s judgment
    of sentence.
    On January 29, 2015, Davis entered an open guilty plea to receiving
    stolen property. Davis admitted that he intentionally received, retained or
    disposed of a laptop computer, a Sony PlayStation 3, a digital camera, and
    jewelry. On April 2, 2015, the trial court sentenced Davis to four months to
    twenty-three and one-half months in prison, with credit for time served.
    J-S63044-15
    Davis filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The trial court ordered Davis to
    file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement.
    In response to the Order, Henry filed a Notice of intent to file an Anders
    brief, and the trial court issued an Opinion.
    On appeal, Henry has filed an Anders Brief raising the following
    question: “Did the Trial Court err in sentencing [Davis] within the standard
    sentencing guidelines?” Anders Brief at 1. Henry filed a separate Petition
    to Withdraw with this Court on July 31, 2015. Davis filed neither a pro se
    brief, nor retained alternate counsel for this appeal.
    We must first determine whether Henry has complied with the dictates
    of   Anders   in   petitioning   to    withdraw   from   representation.   See
    Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 
    928 A.2d 287
    , 290 (Pa. Super. 2007)
    (stating that “[w]hen faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may
    not review the merits of any possible underlying issues without first
    examining counsel’s request to withdraw.”) (citation omitted). Pursuant to
    Anders, when an attorney believes that an appeal is frivolous and wishes to
    withdraw as counsel, he or she must
    (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after
    making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
    determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief
    referring to any issues that might arguably support the appeal,
    but which does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) furnish a
    copy of the brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to
    retain new counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points
    he deems worthy of this Court’s attention.
    -2-
    J-S63044-15
    Commonwealth v. Burwell, 
    42 A.3d 1077
    , 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)
    (citation omitted).
    Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that a
    proper Anders brief must
    (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
    citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
    counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth
    counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state
    counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous.
    Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling
    case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the
    conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
    Commonwealth v. Santiago, 
    978 A.2d 349
    , 361 (Pa. 2009).                 “Once
    counsel has satisfied the [Anders] requirements, it is then this Court’s duty
    to conduct its own review of the trial court’s proceedings and render an
    independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.”
    Commonwealth v. Edwards, 
    906 A.2d 1225
    , 1228 (Pa. Super. 2006).
    Here, Henry has complied with each of the requirements of Anders
    and Santiago.     Henry indicates that he has conscientiously examined the
    record, case law, and statutes, and determined that an appeal would be
    frivolous. Further, Henry’s brief meets the standards set forth in Santiago
    by providing a factual summation of Davis’s case, with support for his
    conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Henry indicates that he is thoroughly
    familiar with the case, having represented Davis from trial to sentencing.
    Finally, Henry provided a copy of his letter to Davis, informing him of his
    intention to withdraw as counsel and advising him of his right to retain new
    -3-
    J-S63044-15
    counsel, proceed pro se, and file additional claims.          Because Henry has
    complied   with     the   procedural   requirements     for   withdrawing     from
    representation, we will independently review the record to determine
    whether Davis’s appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.
    Davis   challenges    the   discretionary   aspects     of   his   sentence.1
    “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
    appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 
    992 A.2d 162
    ,
    170 (Pa. Super. 2010).       Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary
    sentencing issue,
    [this Court conducts] a four[-]part analysis to determine: (1)
    whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
    Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
    preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
    sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief
    has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether
    there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from
    is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [see] 42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
    Moury, 
    992 A.2d at 170
     (citation omitted).
    Here, Davis filed a timely Notice of Appeal. However, he did not raise
    his sentencing claim in a post-sentence motion or at sentencing.               See
    Commonwealth v. Reaves, 
    923 A.2d 1119
    , 1125 (Pa. 2007) (stating that
    “failure to file a motion for reconsideration after failing to object at
    sentencing [] operates to waive issues relating to the discretionary aspects
    1
    Davis entered an open guilty plea, so his plea did not preclude a challenge
    to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Commonwealth v.
    Tirado, 
    870 A.2d 362
    , 365 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2005).
    -4-
    J-S63044-15
    of sentencing”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 
    787 A.2d 1085
    ,
    1088 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that claims challenging discretionary
    aspects of sentencing are waived when the sentencing judge is not afforded
    the opportunity to reconsider or modify the sentence through a post-
    sentence motion or an objection at sentencing).           Further, while a Rule
    2119(f) Statement has been included in the brief, Davis fails to raise a
    substantial question. See Anders Brief at 7 (wherein “Davis argues that the
    trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sentence given in this
    matter”); see also Commonwealth v. Titus, 
    816 A.2d 251
    , 255 (Pa.
    Super. 2003) (stating that “to establish a substantial question, the appellant
    must    show   actions   by   the   sentencing   court   inconsistent   with   the
    Pennsylvania Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms
    underlying the sentencing process.”). Regardless of these defects, Anders
    requires that we examine the merits of Davis’s claims to determine whether
    his appeal is, in fact, “wholly frivolous” in order to rule upon counsel’s
    request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 
    578 A.2d 523
    , 525
    (Pa. Super. 1990) (stating that discretionary aspects of sentencing raised in
    an Anders brief must be addressed on appeal, despite procedural
    violations).
    Our standard of review for challenges to discretionary aspects of
    sentencing is well settled:
    [S]entencing is vested in the discretion of the trial court, and will
    not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of that discretion. An
    -5-
    J-S63044-15
    abuse of discretion involves a sentence which was manifestly
    unreasonable, or which resulted from partiality, prejudice, bias
    or ill will. It is more than just an error in judgment.
    Commonwealth v. Malovich, 
    903 A.2d 1247
    , 1252-53 (Pa. Super. 2006)
    (citation omitted).
    Davis asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the
    sentence. Anders Brief at 9.
    At sentencing, the trial court considered a letter from the victim. N.T.,
    4/2/15, at 5. Additionally, the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence
    investigation report.2   See id. at 2-8; see also Commonwealth v.
    Downing, 
    990 A.2d 788
    , 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “where the
    trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court
    is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that
    where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be
    disturbed”) (quotation marks and citations omitted).     The record indicated
    that Davis had been arrested twice for DUI since October 2014, had three
    prior convictions, and had three outstanding bench warrants. N.T., 4/2/15,
    at 7-8. Further, the trial court considered the sentencing guidelines. Id. at
    5-6; see also Anders Brief at 10. (stating that Davis carried a prior record
    score of 1 and pled guilty to receiving stolen property, which has an offense
    gravity score of 3).
    2
    Davis did not show up for the pre-sentence investigation interview, and,
    therefore, the report reflected what was of record. N.T., 4/2/15, at 5-8.
    -6-
    J-S63044-15
    In imposing the sentence, the trial court considered the pre-sentence
    investigation report, the sentencing guidelines, the recommendation to the
    court, and the victim’s statements.        N.T., 4/2/15, at 2-8; see also
    Downing, 
    990 A.2d at 794
    .       Further, Davis’s sentence of four to twenty-
    three and one-half months in prison was well within the standard range.
    See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104(1);3 see also Anders Brief at 11 (stating that the
    sentencing judge showed no prejudice or ill-will, but rather partiality in favor
    of Davis, by granting him a sentence of two months less than recommended
    by the prosecution and requested by him). Accordingly, the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.
    Additionally, our independent review of the record indicates that there
    are no other claims that arguably support the appeal.       See Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744-45
    .      Based upon the foregoing, Davis’s appeal is wholly
    frivolous, and Henry is entitled to withdraw as counsel.
    Petition to Withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment of sentence
    affirmed.
    Donohue, J., joins the memorandum.
    Mundy, J., concurs in the result.
    3
    Receiving stolen property is punishable by a maximum sentence of five
    years imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104(1).
    -7-
    J-S63044-15
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/7/2015
    -8-