-
J-S56035-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. STEVEN EARL ALLABAUGH, Appellant No. 24 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 25, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No.: CP-40-CR-0000536-2013 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 Appellant, Steven Earl Allabaugh, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his guilty plea to statutory sexual assault and withdraw under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738(1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349(Pa. 2009), alleging that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We affirm the judgment of sentence and grant On July 2, 2013, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to one count each of unlawful contact with a minor, incest, and statutory sexual assault. 1 ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S56035-14 (See Guilty Plea, 7/02/12, at unnumbered page 1). The offenses involved his fourteen-year-old half-sister. Following receipt and review of a pre- sentence investigation report (PSI), on November 25, 2013, the sentencing court sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of not less than sixty- six months nor more than 132 months on the first count, to be followed by an aggregate consecutive term of probation of eight years on the remaining counts with credit for time served. (See N.T. Sentencing, 11/25/13, at 10- 11). Further, the parties stipulated that Appellant met the criteria for a sexually violent predator. (See id. at 2-3). On December 4, 2013, Appellant filed a motion to modify sentence, which the trial court denied on that same date. The instant, timely appeal followed. On December 31, 2013, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Following the withdrawal of trial counsel and the appointment of new counsel, appellate counsel filed a statement of errors complained of on appeal on March 20, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On April 17, 2014, the trial court filed an opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). On July 8, 2014, counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief. On appeal, counsel in the Anders brief raises the following question for our review: _______________________ (Footnote Continued) 1 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 6318(a)(1), 4302(b)(2), and 3122(a)(1), respectively. -2- J-S56035-14 Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion in sentencing the Appellant[?] (Anders Brief, at 1). -appointed counsel has petitioned for permission to withdraw and has submitted an Anders brief, which is procedurally proper for counsel seeking to withdraw on direct appeal. See Anders,
supra.Court-appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw from representing an appellant on direct appeal on the basis that the appeal is frivolous 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 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. Santiago, supra at 361. When we receive an Anders brief, we first rule on the petition to withdraw and then review the merits of the underlying issues. See Commonwealth v. Garang,
9 A.3d 237, 240-41 (Pa. Super. 2010). Anders record to Commonwealth v. Vilsaint,
893 A.2d 753, 755 (Pa. Super. 2006). In the instant matter, counsel has substantially complied with all the requirements of Anders and Santiago. Specifically, he has petitioned this -3- J-S56035-14 unnumbered page 1). In addition, after his review of the record, counsel filed a brief with this Court that provides a summary of the procedural history and facts with citations to the record, refers to any facts or legal theories that arguably support the appeal, and explains why he believes the appeal is frivolous. (See Anders Brief, at 3-7). Lastly, he has attached, as an exhibit to his petition to withdraw, a copy of the letter sent to Appellant giving notice of his rights, and including a copy of the Anders brief and the petition. See Commonwealth v. Millisock,
873 A.2d 748, 749 (Pa. Super. 2005). Appellant did not respond. Because counsel has substantially complied with the dictates of Anders, Santiago, and Millisock, we will examine the issue set forth in the Anders brief that counsel believes has arguable merit. See Garang,
supra at 240-41. On appeal, the Anders brief challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.2 The right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute. See Commonwealth v. McAfee,
849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied,
860 A.2d 122(Pa. 2004). When an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed, he must ____________________________________________ 2 We note that Appellant preserved his discretionary aspects of sentence claim by filing a timely post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence. (See Motion to Modify and Reduce Sentence, 12/04/13); see also McAfee, infra at 275. -4- J-S56035-14 Commonwealth v. Anderson,
830 A.2d 1013, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted). An appellant must, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme. Commonwealth v. Kimbrough,
872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied,
887 A.2d 1240(Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). If determine whether a substantial question exists. See Commonwealth v. Goggins,
748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied,
759 A.2d 920(Pa. 2000) reasons for which the appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are
Id.(emphases in original). The Anders brief in the present case does not contain a Rule 2119(f) statement. Rule 2119(f) statement does not automatically waive from reaching the merits of the claim when the Commonwealth lodges an Commonwealth v. Roser,
914 A.2d 447, 457 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied,
927 A.2d 624(Pa. 2007) (citation omitted). Because the Commonwealth has not objected to -5- J-S56035-14 (See Appellant claims that his sentence was unreasonable and excessive. (See Anders Brief, at 6). However, Appellant concedes that his sentence was in the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines. (See id.). A claim that a sentence was excessive and unreasonable can raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Mouzon,
812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002). However, [w]hen imposing a sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant. . . . Where the sentencing court had assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant information considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. Further, where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Moury,
992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the sentencing court stated that it had reviewed the PSI. (See N.T. Sentencing, 11/25/13, at 10). The sentencing court then sentenced Appellant in the standard range; thus, under our caselaw, the sentence is not excessive or unreasonable. See Moury, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno,
668 A.2d 536, 545-46 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied,
676 A.2d 1195(Pa. 1996) (stating combination of PSI and standard range sentence, absent more, cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable). Therefore, Appellant has -6- J-S56035-14 not raised a substantial question that his sentence was excessive and unreasonable, and we decline to address this issue. conducted an independent review of the record as required by Anders and Santiago and finds that no non-frivolous issues exist. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/26/2014 -7-
Document Info
Docket Number: 24 MDA 2014
Filed Date: 9/26/2014
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014