Com. v. Page, J. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-S37025-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    JAMAL LOUIS PAGE,
    Appellant                  No. 1501 WDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 2, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000116-2015
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN and LAZARUS, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:                            FILED JUNE 03, 2016
    Appellant, Jamal Louis Page, appeals from the judgment of sentence
    entered on September 2, 2015, in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas.
    Appellate counsel has filed a petition seeking to withdraw her representation
    and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and
    Commonwealth v. Santiago, 
    978 A.2d 349
     (Pa. 2009), which govern a
    withdrawal from representation on direct appeal.    After careful review, we
    grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of
    sentence.
    Following a one-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of
    possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Appellant was sentenced on
    September 2, 2015, to a period of thirty-six to seventy-two months of
    J-S37025-16
    incarceration.   Order, 9/2/15; N.T., 9/2/15, at 11-12.         Appellant was
    credited six days of incarceration. N.T., 9/2/15, at 12.
    On September 9, 2015, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion for
    reconsideration of his sentence. By order entered September 16, 2015, the
    trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion. Appellant filed a timely
    notice of appeal on September 29, 2015. Also on that date, counsel filed a
    statement of intent to file an Anders brief and withdraw as counsel pursuant
    to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). In response to counsel’s statement, the trial court
    issued an opinion stating that, based on counsel’s statement of intent to file
    an Anders brief, the court had no issues to address as none had been
    raised. Trial Court Opinion, 10/1/15.
    On November 2, 2015, Attorney Nicole Sloane, who had perfected
    Appellant’s appeal in this matter, filed a petition to withdraw as counsel
    because Assistant Public Defender Emily Mosco Merski had entered her
    appearance on Appellant’s behalf. On November 6, 2015, this Court issued
    an order granting Attorney Sloane’s request to withdraw as counsel, noting
    that Attorney Merski had entered her appearance on Appellant’s behalf.
    Order, 1501 WDA 2015, 11/6/15.          Attorney Merski subsequently filed her
    Anders brief and petition to withdraw on February 2, 2016.
    Before we address the issue that Appellant’s counsel raised on appeal,
    we must resolve appellate counsel’s request to withdraw. Commonwealth
    v. Cartrette, 
    83 A.3d 1030
    , 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). There are
    -2-
    J-S37025-16
    procedural and briefing requirements imposed upon an attorney who seeks
    to withdraw on direct appeal.      The procedural mandates are that counsel
    must:
    1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
    making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
    determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy
    of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that
    he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise
    additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the
    court’s attention.
    
    Id. at 1032
     (citation omitted).
    In this case, counsel has satisfied those directives. Within her petition
    to   withdraw,    counsel   averred   that   she   conducted   a   conscientious
    examination of the record, including all available transcripts, pleadings, and
    other materials. Following that review, counsel concluded that the present
    appeal is wholly frivolous.    Counsel sent Appellant a copy of the Anders
    brief and the petition to withdraw, as well as a letter advising Appellant that
    he could represent himself or that he could retain private counsel to
    represent him.     A copy of that letter was attached to counsel’s petition to
    withdraw.
    We now examine whether the brief satisfies the Supreme Court’s
    dictates in Santiago, which provide that:
    in the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s
    petition to withdraw, counsel 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
    -3-
    J-S37025-16
    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.
    Cartrette, 
    83 A.3d at 1032
     (quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361).
    We are satisfied that counsel has met the requirements set forth in
    Santiago.   Counsel’s brief sets forth the factual and procedural history of
    this case, cites to the record, and refers to an issue that counsel arguably
    believes supports the appeal.     Anders Brief at 4-8.     Further, the brief
    includes counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, and it contains
    pertinent case authority and counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal
    is frivolous. Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, we address the following issue raised
    in the Anders brief:
    Whether the appellant’s sentence is manifestly excessive, clearly
    unreasonable and inconsistent with the objectives of the
    Sentencing Code?
    Anders Brief at 3.
    In the argument portion of the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the
    trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant to a lengthy term of
    incarceration given the mitigating factors of this case.   Anders Brief at 6.
    Specifically, counsel claims that during Appellant’s sentencing hearing, a
    letter from Dr. Hogue of Northshore Neurosciences was presented. Id. at 6.
    The letter contained the professional opinion of Dr. Hogue who offered a
    medical explanation for Appellant’s behavior.      Id. at 6.    Furthermore,
    Appellant apologized to the court, to his family and the victims, and took
    -4-
    J-S37025-16
    responsibility for his actions.   Id. at 7.    Thus, counsel is purporting to
    present a challenge to the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence.
    We note that “[t]he right to appellate review of the discretionary
    aspects of a sentence is not absolute.”       Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 
    107 A.3d 127
    , 132 (Pa. Super. 2014). Rather, where an appellant challenges the
    discretionary aspects of a sentence, the appeal should be considered a
    petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 
    932 A.2d 155
    ,
    163 (Pa. Super. 2007).
    As we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 
    992 A.2d 162
     (Pa.
    Super. 2010):
    An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his
    sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a
    four-part test:
    [W]e conduct 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.
    [708]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal
    defect, 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, 42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).
    Id. at 170 (citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 
    901 A.2d 528
    , 533 (Pa.
    Super. 2006)). The determination of whether there is a substantial question
    is made on a case-by-case basis, and this Court will grant the appeal only
    when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing
    judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the
    -5-
    J-S37025-16
    Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie
    the sentencing process.    Commonwealth v. Sierra, 
    752 A.2d 910
    , 912–
    913 (Pa. Super. 2000).
    Herein, the first three requirements of the four-part test are met:
    Appellant filed a timely appeal, raised the challenges in a post-sentence
    motion, and included in his Anders brief the necessary separate concise
    statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to
    Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Therefore, we next determine whether Appellant raises a
    substantial question requiring us to review the discretionary aspects of the
    sentence imposed by the trial court.
    In his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, Appellant asserts that he was
    sentenced to serve thirty-six to seventy-two months of incarceration.
    Anders Brief at 5. Appellant contends that with an offense gravity score of
    ten and a prior record score of four, the standard minimum range for
    possession of firearm by a prohibited person is thirty-six to forty-eight
    months of incarceration.     Id. at 4.       Appellant acknowledges that his
    sentence is within the standard sentencing range.       Id. at 5.      Appellant
    argues, however that the sentence violates the sentencing code because,
    despite the court sentencing him within the guidelines, the case involves
    circumstances where application of the guidelines was unreasonable. Id. at
    5. Appellant avers that the sentencing court is required to consider factors
    outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) and failed to do so here. Id. at 5.
    -6-
    J-S37025-16
    “[T]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim-in conjunction
    with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors-raises a
    substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 
    97 A.3d 1244
    , 1253 (Pa.
    Super. 2014) (citation omitted).       Because Appellant has presented a
    substantial question, we proceed with our analysis.
    Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing
    judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest
    abuse of discretion.   Commonwealth v. Fullin, 
    892 A.2d 843
    , 847 (Pa.
    Super. 2006). In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by
    an error in judgment.      
    Id.
        Rather, the appellant must establish, by
    reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the
    law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill
    will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision. 
    Id.
    Furthermore, the “[s]entencing court has broad discretion in choosing
    the range of permissible confinements which best suits a particular
    defendant and the circumstances surrounding his crime.” Commonwealth
    v. Boyer, 
    856 A.2d 149
    , 153 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting Commonwealth
    v. Moore, 
    617 A.2d 8
    , 12 (1992)).       Discretion is limited, however, by 42
    Pa.C.S.§ 9721(b), which provides that a sentencing court must formulate a
    sentence individualized to that particular case and that particular defendant.
    Id.
    -7-
    J-S37025-16
    Section 9721(b) provides:      “[t]he court shall follow the general
    principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is
    consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, as it
    relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the
    rehabilitative needs of the defendant ...” Boyer, 
    856 A.2d at
    153 (citing 42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)). Furthermore,
    [i]n imposing sentence, the trial court is required to consider the
    particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the
    defendant. The trial court should refer to the defendant’s prior
    criminal record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for
    rehabilitation. However, where the sentencing judge had the
    benefit of a presentence investigative report, it will be presumed
    that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding
    the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations
    along with mitigating statutory factors.
    Boyer, 
    856 A.2d at 154
    .       Additionally, “where a sentence is within the
    standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as
    appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 
    992 A.2d at 171
    .
    Instantly, Appellant’s sentence falls within the strictures of our
    sentencing guidelines.   The conviction carried an offense gravity score of
    ten, and Appellant had a prior record score of four. As such, the standard
    guideline sentence for that offense was forty-eight to sixty months of
    incarceration, plus or minus twelve months for aggravating or mitigating
    circumstances. 204 Pa.Code 303.16(a). Accordingly, Appellant’s sentence
    of thirty-six to seventy-two months was in the mitigated range of the
    -8-
    J-S37025-16
    sentencing guidelines. He, therefore, must demonstrate that the application
    of those guidelines would be clearly unreasonable. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2).
    As noted, Appellant submits that the sentencing court abused its
    discretion in sentencing him to such a lengthy period of incarceration given
    the mitigating factors of his case.   To this end, Appellant argues that the
    sentencing court disregarded evidence regarding a medical explanation for
    Appellant’s behavior, the fact that Appellant apologized to the court, to his
    family and victims, and took responsibility for his actions. Appellant’s Brief
    at 6-7.
    The sentencing court’s statements prior to imposing sentence belie
    Appellant’s allegation that the court failed to consider this information.
    Despite Appellant’s assertions to the contrary, the sentencing court was
    aware of his background. The court heard testimony from Appellant’s father
    and from Appellant himself.    N.T., 9/2/15, at 7-9.   Additionally, the court
    had the benefit of a presentence investigation report and considered all of
    the mitigating information contained therein.     Id. at 10.      In sentencing
    Appellant, the trial court presented the following explanation:
    All right. The [c]ourt has considered the Pennsylvania
    Sentencing Code, the presentence report, and the Pennsylvania
    guidelines on sentencing. The [c]ourt has also considered the
    statements of counsel, [Appellant], and the attorney for the
    Commonwealth.
    The [c]ourt has considered [Appellant’s] age, background,
    character, and rehabilitative needs, the nature, circumstances,
    and seriousness of the offense and the protection of the
    community.
    -9-
    J-S37025-16
    ***
    The [c]ourt will order the following sentence, and I’ll give
    [Appellant] every consideration by giving a sentence from the
    low end of the mitigated range of the sentencing guidelines. He
    is ordered to pay the costs of prosecution. No fine will be
    imposed. He will be ordered incarcerated, a minimum period of
    which will be 36 months, a maximum of which will be 72
    months. [Appellant] will receive credit for time served in the
    amount of six days.
    N.T., 9/2/15, at 10-12.
    The court imposed a low-end mitigated range sentence as a result of
    Appellant’s conviction. The gist of Appellant’s argument is not that the court
    failed to consider the pertinent sentencing factors, but rather that the court
    weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes. Accordingly,
    we conclude that the record supports the sentencing court’s reasoning and
    that its decision conforms to the applicable law. The sentence imposed was
    at the low end of the mitigated range of the sentencing guidelines, and the
    record reflects that the court carefully considered all of the evidence
    presented at the sentencing hearing.         As such, we discern no abuse of
    discretion, nor can we conclude that the sentencing court arrived at a
    manifestly unreasonable decision. Boyer, 
    856 A.2d at 153
    .
    Finally, we have independently reviewed the record in order to
    determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues present in this case.
    Commonwealth v. Harden, 
    103 A.3d 107
    , 111 (Pa. Super. 2014). Having
    - 10 -
    J-S37025-16
    concluded that there are no meritorious issues, we grant Appellant’s counsel
    permission to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
    Petition of counsel to withdraw is granted.     Judgment of sentence
    affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/3/2016
    - 11 -