Com. v. Spoonhour, J.

J-S20038-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JORDAN MICHAEL SPOONHOUR :
:
Appellant : No. 1585 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000156-2018
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 31, 2019
Appellant, Jordan Michael Spoonhour, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, following his
negotiated guilty plea to one count of assault by a prisoner.1 We affirm and
grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
September 1, 2016, while incarcerated at SCI-Albion, Appellant and two
accomplices attacked Victim, another inmate. Appellant and his accomplices
repeatedly punched, kicked, and jumped on Victim until Department of
Corrections’ staff intervened. As a result of the attack, Victim suffered a
concussion, as well as bruising to his face and head. On August 20, 2018,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703(a).
J-S20038-19
Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of assault by a prisoner. In
exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to make a sentence recommendation
of forty-eight (48) to ninety-six (96) months’ imprisonment. The court
followed the recommendation and sentenced Appellant accordingly on October
15, 2018. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions, but he timely filed a
notice of appeal on November 6, 2018. On the same day, counsel filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) statement of intent to file an Anders2 brief. Counsel
filed a petition for leave to withdraw as counsel and an Anders brief in this
Court on February 12, 2019.
As a preliminary matter, counsel seeks to withdraw her representation
pursuant to Anders, supra and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159,
978 A.2d 349 (2009). Anders and Santiago require counsel to: (1) petition
the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a thorough review of the
record, counsel has concluded the issues to be raised are wholly frivolous; (2)
file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the appellant and advise him of
his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se brief to raise any additional
points the appellant deems worthy of review. Santiago, supra at 173-79,
978 A.2d at 358-61. Substantial compliance with these requirements is
sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa.Super.
____________________________________________
2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
-2-
J-S20038-19
2007). After confirming that counsel has met the antecedent requirements to
withdraw, this Court makes an independent review of the record to confirm
that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244,
1246 (Pa.Super. 2006). See also Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d
266 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc).
In Santiago, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the briefing
requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw
representation:
Neither Anders nor [Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495
Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981)] requires that counsel’s brief
provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of
argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To repeat,
what the brief must provide under Anders are references
to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.
* * *
Under Anders, the right to counsel is vindicated by
counsel’s examination and assessment of the record and
counsel’s references to anything in the record that arguably
supports the appeal.
Santiago, supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court held:
[I]n 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 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.
-3-
J-S20038-19
Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.
Instantly, Appellant’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw. The
petition states counsel conducted a conscientious review of the record and
determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel also supplied Appellant
with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining Appellant’s right to retain new
counsel or to proceed pro se to raise any additional issues Appellant deems
worthy of this Court’s attention. In the Anders brief, counsel provides a
summary of the facts and procedural history of the case. Counsel’s argument
refers to relevant law that might possibly support Appellant’s issues. Counsel
further states the reasons for the conclusion that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Therefore, counsel has substantially complied with the technical
requirements of Anders and Santiago.
Appellant has not responded to the Anders brief pro se or with newly-
retained private counsel. Counsel raises the following issue on Appellant’s
behalf:
WHETHER APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE, CLEARLY UNREASONABLE AND INCONSISTENT
WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SENTENCING CODE?
(Anders Brief at 3).
Appellant argues the court abused its discretion by sentencing Appellant
to a lengthy period of incarceration even though Appellant took responsibility
for his actions and admitted his guilt. Appellant alleges that the objectives of
the Sentencing Code could have been achieved without the imposition of such
-4-
J-S20038-19
a lengthy sentence. Appellant concludes his sentence is manifestly excessive.
Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949, 964 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating
claim that sentence is manifestly excessive tests discretionary aspects of
sentencing); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545
(Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 653, 676 A.2d 1195 (1996) (stating
allegation court ignored mitigating factors disputes discretionary aspects of
sentencing).
Generally, objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are
waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify
the sentence imposed at that hearing. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d
788, 794 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 759, 831 A.2d 599 (2003).
[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. 720; (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).
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (internal citations omitted).
Additionally, although “a guilty plea which includes sentence negotiation
ordinarily precludes a defendant from contesting the validity of his...sentence
other than to argue that the sentence is illegal or that the sentencing court
-5-
J-S20038-19
did not have jurisdiction, open plea agreements are an exception in which a
defendant will not be precluded from appealing the discretionary aspects of
the sentence.” Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 n.5 (Pa.Super.
2005) (emphasis in original). “An ‘open’ plea agreement is one in which there
is no negotiated sentence.” Id. at 363 n.1.
When negotiating a plea bargain, if the Commonwealth promises to
recommend a certain sentence, then the Commonwealth is bound to
recommend that sentence; the recommendation, however, does not
necessarily bind the trial court, which can deviate from the recommendation,
provided the defendant has the chance to withdraw his guilty plea, unless the
defendant has expressly waived the right to withdraw the plea. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Wallace, 582 Pa. 234, 242 n.5, 870 A.2d 838, 843 n.5
(2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Zuber, 466 Pa. 453, 458 n.4, 353 A.2d
441, 444 n.4 (1976); Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 442 Pa. 524, 528, 277
A.2d 341, 343 (1971)). Moreover, a plea bargain that includes a “sentence
recommendation,” but no agreement for a “stated term,” does not necessarily
preclude a challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied,
540 Pa. 594, 655 A.2d 983 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818, 116 S. Ct. 75,
133 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1995).
Instantly, Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of assault by a
prisoner, and the Commonwealth made a sentence recommendation of 48 to
-6-
J-S20038-19
96 months’ imprisonment. The court followed the recommendation and
sentenced Appellant accordingly. Appellant did not object to the sentence at
sentencing or file post-sentence motions. Thus, Appellant waived his
sentencing issue. See Mann, supra. Here, Appellant entered a guilty plea
with a known sentence recommendation, and the court imposed the
recommended sentence. Absent more, the judgment of sentence stands.
Following an independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. See Dempster, supra. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed; counsel’s petition to withdraw is
granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/31/2019
-7-