Opinion
J-S32021-18 No. 1694 MDA 2017
08-14-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JEAN EVELYN LANE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 28, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-08-CR-0000056-2017 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and PLATT, J. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
I concur with the learned Majority's analysis of the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Moreover, I recognize the shortcomings of this Anders brief, as highlighted by the Majority. However, because I conclude that counsel's brief is in substantial, if minimal, compliance with the requirements of Anders and Santiago , I respectfully dissent in part.
Preliminarily, my review of counsel's brief confirms that it does contain, contrary to the Majority's assertion of omission, a compliant factual summary of the case. ( See Majority, at 4; see also Anders Brief, at 6).
Furthermore, although the brief does not use the appropriate terminology, (in particular, "frivolous"), taken in its totality, it adequately conveys, with citation to pertinent legal authority, why counsel believes that Appellant's challenges to the guideline sentences could not succeed. ( See Anders Brief, at 7-10).
Specifically, counsel explains that the issue of sentencing to treatment court, intermediate county punishment or state intermediate punishment was not an error of law, but a matter within the trial court's discretion. ( See id. at 8). Counsel notes that the court explained its reason for rejecting these options, namely that it believed Appellant was a drug dealer in the community with a poor history of rehabilitation. ( See id.).
Counsel correctly stated that, in order to appeal the discretionary aspects of sentence, Appellant must raise a substantial question. ( See id. at 10). Counsel then explained that while Appellant believed that her sentence was excessive, the trial court sentenced her in the standard range of the sentencing guidelines after it had reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report. ( See id. at 9).
While this Anders brief is not a model of draftsmanship, I believe that it was sufficient to demonstrate that counsel had reviewed the case and rejected Appellant's sentencing claims as frivolous, i.e., without basis in law or fact. Therefore, it substantially complies with Anders and Santiago. I would permit counsel to withdraw, so that this Court can independently assess the merits of Appellant's claims without additional delay, and examine the record to determine if any other non-frivolous issues exist, as required by Anders and Santiago.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.