Com. v. Wilsoncroft, R.

J-A20038-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RYAN S. WILSONCROFT :
:
Appellant : No. 1723 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 18, 2019
in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-33-CR-0000577-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2020
Ryan S. Wilsoncroft (“Wilsoncroft”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation. Additionally,
Wilsoncroft’s counsel, Mark A. Wallisch, Esquire (“Attorney Wallisch”), has
filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel, and a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978
A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We grant Attorney Wallisch’s Application to Withdraw,
and affirm Wilsoncroft’s judgment of sentence.
On the morning of September 7, 2011, Wilsoncroft and Brett Middleton
(“Middleton”) entered the Hometown Drug Pharmacy (the “Pharmacy”)
located at 311 Main Street, Brockway Borough, Jefferson County,
Pennsylvania. At that time, Wilsoncroft and Middleton threatened the
Pharmacy employees with a revolver, then tied them up, and demanded all of
J-A20038-20
the Pharmacy’s narcotics. During the robbery, one of the employees was
struck in the head with the revolver. Wilsoncroft was subsequently charged
with robbery and related offenses.
On February 5, 2014, Wilsoncroft entered a negotiated guilty plea to
one count of robbery.1 Wilsoncroft and the Commonwealth agreed to a
negotiated sentence of 31 to 60 months in prison followed by 10 years of
probation. In exchange, the remaining offenses were nolle prossed. On the
same date, the trial court accepted Wilsoncroft’s guilty plea and Wilsoncroft
proceeded immediately to sentencing.
The trial court sentenced Wilsoncroft, in accordance with the plea
agreement, to a period of 31 to 60 months in prison followed by 10 years of
probation, plus fines, costs, and restitution totaling $16,803.54.
On September 29, 2018, Wilsoncroft was released from prison. At that
time, Wilsoncroft entered into a payment plan with the Jefferson County Adult
Probation Department (“Probation Department”) to pay $152.00 a month
toward his costs and fines.
On August 24, 2019, Wilsoncroft was arrested for disorderly conduct
and public drunkenness.2 On August 28, 2019, Wilsoncroft pled guilty to the
citations for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. On August 26, 2019,
____________________________________________
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4), 5505.
-2-
J-A20038-20
the trial court lodged a detainer, in the instant case, based upon Wilsoncroft’s
recent arrest.
On September 3, 2019, the Probation Department filed a Petition to
revoke Wilsoncroft’s probation, alleging that Wilsoncroft had violated the
technical terms of his probation and committed new crimes. In particular, the
Probation Department alleged that Wilsoncroft had admitted to the use of
methamphetamines; during the above-mentioned incident, Wilsoncroft had
jumped into the bed of a passing truck and had to be forcibly removed by
police officers; and Wilsoncroft had failed to make his regularly scheduled
payment of $152.00. On September 4, 2019, Wilsoncroft waived his right to
a Gagnon I3 hearing, and the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation
report (“PSI”).
On September 18, 2019, the trial court conducted a Gagnon II hearing.
During the hearing, Wilsoncroft agreed that he was in violation of his
probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that
Wilsoncroft had violated his probation, and revoked Wilsoncroft’s probation.
The trial court resentenced Wilsoncroft to 6 to 20 years in prison, with credit
for time served, plus fines, costs, and restitution.
On October 17, 2019, Wilsoncroft filed a request to file a Post-Sentence
Motion, nunc pro tunc, as well as a Post-Sentence Motion. In his Motion,
____________________________________________
3 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
-3-
J-A20038-20
Wilsoncroft requested that the trial court reconsider his sentence, as it was
excessive, manifestly unreasonable, and the punishment was too severe.
Additionally, Wilsoncroft’s Motion alleged that the trial court failed to state
adequate reasons on the record for the sentence imposed. The trial court
granted Wilsoncroft’s request to file a Post-Sentence Motion, nunc pro tunc,
but denied Wilsoncroft’s Post-Sentence Motion.
On November 15, 2019, Wilsoncroft filed a timely Notice of Appeal and
court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of
on appeal.4, 5 Attorney Wallisch subsequently filed, with this Court, an
____________________________________________
4 Because Wilsoncroft specifically requested permission to file his Post-
Sentence Motion, nunc pro tunc, and the trial court expressly granted
Wilsoncroft permission to file his Motion, nunc pro tunc, his Notice of Appeal
is timely. See Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122, 1128 (Pa. Super.
2003) (en banc) (stating that a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, filed
within the first 30 days of the imposition of sentence, tolls the appeal period
where the defendant specifically requested permission to file the post-
sentence motion nunc pro tunc, and the trial court expressly granted
permission to file the post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc).
5 Our review of the record reveals that Attorney Wallisch failed to attach a
copy of the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement to his Anders Brief. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(d) (stating that an appellant shall attach a copy of the
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement to the appellant brief). However,
Attorney Wallisch filed the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement in accordance
with the trial court’s Order. Attorney Wallisch’s omission is not a jurisdictional
defect, and the Commonwealth has not objected to this defect; thus, we
decline to dismiss Wilsoncroft’s appeal on this basis. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(stating that “if the defects are in the brief … of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”)
(emphasis added). Moreover, Attorney Wallisch has filed an Anders Brief
and, as such, this Court has an independent obligation to review the entire
record to ascertain whether any non-frivolous issues are present.
-4-
J-A20038-20
Application to Withdraw as Counsel, and a brief pursuant to Anders.
Wilsoncroft did not file a pro se brief, nor did he retain alternate counsel for
this appeal.
Before addressing Wilsoncroft’s issue on appeal, we must determine
whether Attorney Wallisch has complied with the dictates of Anders and its
progeny in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 986 A.2d 1241, 1244 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(stating that “[w]hen presented with an Anders Brief, this Court may not
review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request
to withdraw.”). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes that an appeal is
frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he or she must
(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after
making a conscientious examination of the record and
interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal
would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the
record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to
[the] defendant and advise him or his right to retain new counsel
or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the
court’s attention. The determination of whether the appeal is
frivolous remains with the court.
Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Additionally, our Supreme Court has explained 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
-5-
J-A20038-20
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.
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.
After determining that counsel has satisfied the technical requirements
of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of
the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious
issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.”
Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en
banc).
Instantly, our review of the Anders Brief and the Application to
Withdraw confirms that Attorney Wallisch has substantially complied with each
of the technical requirements of Anders and Santiago. See
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating
that counsel must substantially comply with the requirements of Anders).
Attorney Wallisch indicates that he has made a conscientious examination of
the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous. The record
further reflects that Attorney Wallisch has furnished a copy of the Anders
Brief to Wilsoncroft, and advised Wilsoncroft of his right to retain new counsel
or proceed pro se, or raise any additional points that he deems worthy of this
Court’s attention. Additionally, the Anders Brief substantially complies with
the requirements of Santiago. As Attorney Wallisch has complied with all of
the requirements for withdrawing from representation, we will examine the
-6-
J-A20038-20
record and make an independent determination of whether Wilsoncroft’s
appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.
In the Anders Brief, Attorney Wallisch presents the following issue for
our review: “Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an abuse of discretion
when it revoked [Wilsoncroft]’s probation and re-sentenced him to a minimum
of six (6) to a maximum of twenty (20) years in a state correctional institution
given the circumstances of the case[?]” Anders Brief at 4.
Wilsoncroft contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him because the sentence was manifestly excessive and
unreasonable. Id. at 10-11. Wilsoncroft argues, in essence, that the trial
court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a period of total confinement.
Anders Brief at 9-11. Wilsoncroft asserts that the trial court should have
sentenced him to a period of 30 days in the Jefferson County Prison, followed
by in-patient treatment. Id. Wilsoncroft acknowledges that he pled guilty to
two new criminal offenses and committed various technical violations of his
probation. Id. at 10-11.
Wilsoncroft’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,
from which there is no absolute right to appeal. See Commonwealth v.
Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 420 (Pa. Super. 2016). Rather, when an appellant
challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, we must consider his
brief on this issue as a petition for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v.
Yanoff, 690 A.2d 260, 267 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Commonwealth v.
-7-
J-A20038-20
Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17, 18 (Pa. 1987). 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, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
substantial question that the sentencing appealed from is not
appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b)
***
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A substantial
question exists only when the appellant advance[s] a colorable
argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1)
inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or
(2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the
sentencing process.
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation
marks and some citations omitted).
Here, Wilsoncroft filed a timely Notice of Appeal, challenged the
discretionary aspects of his sentence in a Post-Sentence Motion nunc pro tunc,
and included a separate Rule 2119(f) Statement in his Brief. Additionally,
Wilsoncroft’s assertion that the trial court imposed a sentence following the
revocation of probation that was manifestly excessive and “constituted too
severe of a punishment,” raises a substantial question for our review. See
Anders Brief at 7; see Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638, 640 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (stating that “[a] claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive
such that it constitutes too severe a punishment raises a substantial
-8-
J-A20038-20
question.”) (citation omitted). Thus, we will consider the merits of
Wilsoncroft’s claim.
Our standard of review for a trial court’s revocation of probation is as
follows:
The imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation
is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which
absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.
An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment—a
sentencing court has not abused its discretion unless the record
discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014).
The reason for this broad discretion and deferential standard
of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best
position to measure various factors and determine the proper
penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the
individual circumstances before it. Simply stated, the sentencing
court sentences flesh-and-blood defendants and the nuances of
sentencing decisions are difficult to gauge from the cold transcript
used upon appellate review. Moreover, the sentencing court
enjoys an institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing to
its decisions an expertise, experience, and judgment that should
not be lightly disturbed.
The sentencing court’s institutional advantage is, perhaps,
more pronounced in fashioning a sentence following the
revocation of probation, which is qualitatively different than an
initial sentencing proceeding. At initial sentencing, all of the rules
and procedures designed to inform the court and to cabin its
discretionary sentencing authority properly are involved and play
a crucial role. However, it is a different matter when a defendant
appears before the court for sentencing proceedings following a
violation of the mercy bestowed upon in the form of a probationary
sentence. For example, in such a case, contrary to when an initial
sentence is imposed, the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply, and
the revocation court is not cabined by Section 9721(b)’s
requirement that “the sentence imposed should call for
confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public,
-9-
J-A20038-20
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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721.
Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21, 27 (Pa. 2014) (some citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Upon revocation of probation, a sentencing court may choose from any
of the sentencing options that existed at the time of the original sentence,
including incarceration. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b). However, the imposition of
total confinement upon revocation requires a finding that either “(1) the
defendant has been convicted of another crime; or (2) the conduct of the
defendant indicates that it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is
not imprisoned; or (3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority
of the court.” Id. § 9771(c).
Moreover, “[i]n every case in which the court … resentences an offender
following revocation of probation, … the court shall make as part of the record,
and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason
or reasons for the sentence imposed.” Id. § 9721(b); see also Pa.R.Crim.P.
708(D)(2) (providing that “[t]he judge shall state on the record the reasons
for the sentence imposed.”). However, following a revocation of probation, a
sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its reasons for
imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statutes in question. See
Pasture, 107 A.3d at 28 (stating that “since the defendant has previously
appeared before the sentencing court, the stated reasons for a revocation
- 10 -
J-A20038-20
sentence need not be as elaborate as that which is required at initial
sentencing.”).
Here, at sentencing, the trial court stated that it had “reviewed [the
PSI], considered Wilsoncroft’s age, [] background, [and] prior [criminal]
record.” See N.T. (Gagnon II Hearing), 9/18/19, at 3-4; see also
Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating
that “where the trial court is informed by a [PSI], 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.”). Additionally, the trial court found that Wilsoncroft had pled guilty
to two other crimes—disorderly conduct and public drunkenness—, in addition
to his technical violations. See N.T. (Gagnon II Hearing), 9/18/19, at 3; see
also Trial Court Opinion, 2/19/20, at 1-2 (stating that Wilsoncroft’s new
convictions and technical violations demonstrated that he was unwilling to
reform). Our review of the record confirms that the trial court had sufficient
information to make a fully-informed sentencing decision following the
revocation of Wilsoncroft’s probation. We conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Wilsoncroft, and Wilsoncroft’s challenge to
the discretionary aspects of his sentence is wholly frivolous. See Colon,
supra.
Finally, our independent review of the record discloses no other
“arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or
- 11 -
J-A20038-20
misstated.” Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272. As such, we grant Attorney
Wallisch’s Application to Withdraw, and affirm the judgment of sentence.
Application to Withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/30/2020
- 12 -