J-S01033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DONALD CARNES
Appellant No. 985 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 8, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0001634-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2015
Appellant, Donald Carnes, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial
convictions for two (2) counts of indecent assault and one (1) count each of
rape of a child, corruption of minors, endangering welfare of children
(“EWOC”), aggravated indecent assault of a child, and indecent exposure.1
We affirm the convictions, vacate the judgment of sentence, remand for
resentencing, and deny counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On multiple occasions in 2012, Appellant sexually molested his girlfriend’s
eight-year-old daughter. Following a bench trial, the court convicted
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126, 3121(c), 6301, 4304, 3125(b), 3127, respectively.
J-S01033-15
Appellant of two counts of indecent assault and one count each of rape of a
child, corruption of minors, EWOC, aggravated indecent assault of a child,
and indecent exposure. Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth filed notice
of intent to seek mandatory minimum sentences for Appellant’s rape of a
child and aggravated indecent assault of a child convictions, pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9718 (stating person convicted of rape of child or aggravated
indecent assault of child shall be sentenced to at least ten (10) years’
imprisonment).
On May 8, 2014, the court conducted Appellant’s sentencing hearing.
Prior to imposing the sentences, the court classified Appellant as a sexually
violent predator. Thereafter, the court sentenced Appellant to two hundred
sixteen (216) to four hundred thirty-two (432) months’ imprisonment for the
rape of a child conviction. The court imposed a concurrent term of one
hundred twenty (120) to two hundred forty (240) months’ imprisonment for
the aggravated indecent assault of a child conviction.2 Regarding the
convictions for corruption of minors, EWOC, and one count of indecent
assault, the court sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of twelve (12) to
twenty-four (24) months’ imprisonment. For Appellant’s indecent exposure
conviction, the court sentenced Appellant to a concurrent term of three (3)
____________________________________________
2
The court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence per 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9718 for aggravated indecent assault of a child. The court’s sentence for
rape of a child exceeded the Section 9718 mandatory minimum.
-2-
J-S01033-15
to twenty-four (24) months’ imprisonment. The final count of indecent
assault merged with the rape conviction for sentencing purposes. Thus,
Appellant received an aggregate sentence of two hundred sixteen (216) to
four hundred thirty-two (432) months’ imprisonment.
On Monday, May 19, 2014, Appellant timely filed a post-sentence
motion. In it, Appellant challenged his sentence as follows: “[Appellant’s]
sentence is violative of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines and
[Appellant] should be re-sentenced.” (Post-Sentence Motion, filed 5/19/14,
at 1). Appellant did not elaborate on how his sentence violated the
guidelines. Also on May 19, 2014, the court denied Appellant’s post-
sentence motion.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on June 17, 2014. On June
18, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On July 8, 2014,
counsel timely filed a statement of intent to file a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel seeks to withdraw her
representation pursuant to Anders 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
-3-
J-S01033-15
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. 2007). “After establishing that the antecedent
requirements have been met, this Court must then make an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly
frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super.
2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Townsend, 693 A.2d 980, 982
(Pa.Super. 1997)).
In Santiago, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the briefing
requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw
representation:
Neither Anders nor McClendon[3] 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
____________________________________________
3
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981).
-4-
J-S01033-15
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.
Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.
Instantly, appellate counsel filed a petition for leave to withdraw. The
petition states counsel performed a conscientious examination of the record
and concluded the appeal would be wholly frivolous. Counsel also supplied
Appellant with a copy of the withdrawal petition, the brief, and a letter
explaining Appellant’s right to proceed pro se or with new privately retained
counsel to raise any additional points Appellant deems worthy of this Court’s
attention. In her Anders brief, counsel provides a summary of the
procedural history of the case. Counsel refers to facts in the record that
might arguably support the issue raised on appeal and offers citations to
relevant law. The brief also provides counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is
wholly frivolous. Thus, counsel has substantially complied with the
requirements of Anders and Santiago.
As Appellant has filed neither a pro se brief nor a counseled brief with
-5-
J-S01033-15
new privately retained counsel, we review this appeal on the basis of the
issue raised in the Anders brief:
WHETHER APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE, CLEARLY UNREASONABLE AND
INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
SENTENCING CODE?
(Anders Brief at 3).
Appellant contends the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating
factors, including the support he receives from his family, his good
character, volunteer work, educational background, military service, and his
role as a father. Appellant concedes his sentences fall within the standard
range of the sentencing guidelines. Nevertheless, Appellant “argues that
given his obvious remorse, his rehabilitative potential, and the fact that he
has no prior criminal history, the sentencing court should have...fashioned a
lesser sentence.” (Appellant’s Brief at 8). Appellant concludes the court
abused its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence.
Appellant’s challenge is to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating claim
that sentence is manifestly excessive challenges discretionary aspects of
sentencing).
Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an
appellant to an appeal as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d
910 (Pa.Super. 2000). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary
sentencing issue:
-6-
J-S01033-15
[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).
Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if
they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify
the sentence imposed at that hearing.4 Commonwealth v. Mann, 820
A.2d 788 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 759, 831 A.2d 599
(2003).
When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant
must invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a
separate concise statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the
appropriateness of the sentence under the Sentencing Code.
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P.
2119(f). “The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the
____________________________________________
4
Here, Appellant failed to raise his specific discretionary aspects claim at the
sentencing hearing or in the post-sentence motion. Due to counsel’s petition
to withdraw, however, we proceed with our analysis of Appellant’s issue.
See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa.Super. 2009)
(explaining Anders requires review of issues otherwise waived on appeal).
-7-
J-S01033-15
reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal ‘furthers the purpose evident in
the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s
evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision
to exceptional cases.’” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112
(Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174 L.Ed.2d
240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387
(Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc) (emphasis in original)).
The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830
A.2d 1013 (Pa.Super. 2003). A substantial question exists “only when the
appellant advances 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.” Sierra, supra at 912-13 (quoting Commonwealth v.
Brown, 741 A.2d 726, 735 (Pa.Super. 1999) (en banc), appeal denied, 567
Pa. 755, 790 A.2d 1013 (2001)).
A claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive might raise a
substantial question if the appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement sufficiently
articulates the manner in which the sentence imposed violates a specific
provision of the Sentencing Code or the norms underlying the sentencing
process. Mouzon, supra at 435, 812 A.2d at 627. Nevertheless, “[a]n
allegation that a sentencing court ‘failed to consider’ or ‘did not adequately
-8-
J-S01033-15
consider’ certain factors does not raise a substantial question that the
sentence was inappropriate.” Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d
536, 545 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 653, 676 A.2d 1195
(1996) (quoting Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 653 A.2d 706, 710 (Pa.Super.
1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 625, 661 A.2d 873 (1995)).
Instantly, Appellant’s assertion that the court improperly weighed the
mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question. See Cruz-
Centeno, supra. Here, the court had the benefit of a PSI report. (See N.T.
Sentencing Hearing, 5/8/14, at 35, 38.) Therefore, we can presume the
court considered the relevant information and mitigating factors. See
Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 366 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(stating where sentencing court had benefit of PSI, law presumes court was
aware of and weighed relevant information regarding defendant’s character
and mitigating factors). Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his
challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing.
Regarding the imposition of Section 9718 mandatory minimum
sentences, we are mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314
(2013), in which the Court expressly held that any fact increasing the
mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is considered an element of the
crime to be submitted to the fact-finder and found beyond a reasonable
doubt. Here, the court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence under
-9-
J-S01033-15
Section 9718 (governing sentences for certain offenses committed against
minor victims) for Appellant’s aggravated indecent assault conviction. The
court also imposed a sentence that exceeded the mandatory minimum for
Appellant’s rape of a child conviction. Consequently, we elect sua sponte to
review the legality of Appellant’s sentences for rape of a child and
aggravated indecent assault of a child. See Commonwealth v. Edrington,
780 A.2d 721 (Pa.Super. 2001) (assuming proper jurisdiction, application of
mandatory minimum sentence involves legality of sentence, which this Court
can raise sua sponte).
Section 9718(a)(3) sets forth mandatory minimum sentences of ten
(10) years’ imprisonment where a defendant is convicted of rape of a child
or aggravated indecent assault of a child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718(a)(3).
Section 9718(c) states that the statutory provisions shall not be an element
of the crime and applicability of the statute shall be determined at
sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718(c).
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en
banc), this Court addressed the constitutionality of a similar statute, 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Alleyne, supra.5 Relying on Alleyne, Newman held that Section 9712.1
____________________________________________
5
This Court also made clear that Alleyne is subject to limited retroactivity;
in other words, Alleyne is applicable to all criminal cases still pending on
direct review. Id. at 90. Because Newman’s case was still pending on direct
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 10 -
J-S01033-15
can no longer pass constitutional muster as it “permits the trial court, as
opposed to the jury, to increase a defendant’s minimum sentence based
upon a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was dealing drugs
and possessed a firearm, or that a firearm was in close proximity to the
drugs.” Newman, supra at 98. Thus, this Court vacated Newman’s PWID
sentence and remanded for resentencing without imposition of the
mandatory minimum under Section 9712.1. See also Commonwealth v.
Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa.Super. 2014) (involving appeal of sentence
arising from jury trial; extending logic of Alleyne and Newman to Sections
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9712, 9713 and holding those sections are likewise
unconstitutional insofar as they permit automatic increase of defendant’s
sentence based on preponderance of evidence standard).
Subsequently, this Court directly addressed the constitutionality of
Section 9718 in Commonwealth v. Wolfe, ___ A.3d ___, 2014 PA Super
288 (filed December 24, 2014). In Wolfe, a jury convicted the defendant of
sex crimes committed against a minor victim, including two counts of
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”).6 The court imposed ten-
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
appeal, the holding in Alleyne applied to Newman’s case, as it also does
here in this direct appeal.
6
The relevant portion of the IDSI statute provides: “A person commits a
felony of the first degree when the person engages in deviate sexual
intercourse with a complainant…who is less than 16 years of age and the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 11 -
J-S01033-15
year mandatory minimum sentences for each IDSI conviction, pursuant to
Section 9718(a)(1). On appeal, this Court emphasized that Section 9718
“contains the same format” as the unconstitutional statutes at issue in
Newman and Valentine. Id. at *5. Consequently, this Court held Section
9718 is also facially unconstitutional. Moreover, this Court noted:
We recognize that this specific case is unique insofar that
the additional fact triggering the mandatory sentence is
also contained as an element within the subsection of the
IDSI statute under which [the defendant] was convicted.
Therefore, in order to convict [the defendant] of IDSI, the
Commonwealth was already required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the victim was less than 16 years
old.
However, we are not concerned with [the defendant’s]
conviction in this appeal, only the imposition of the
mandatory minimum sentence.
* * *
[I]n this case, although the jury was required to find that
the victim was less than 16 years of age in order to convict
[the defendant], we cannot ignore the binding precedent
from an en banc decision of this Court. Newman stands
for the proposition that mandatory minimum sentence
statutes in Pennsylvania of this format are void in their
entirety. As Section 9718 is indistinguishable from the
statutes struck down in Newman and Valentine, we are
constrained to conclude that Section 9718 is also facially
void. As a result, we conclude the trial court erred in
imposing the ten-year mandatory minimum.
Id. at 5-6 (internal citations omitted).
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant
and person are not married to each other.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a)(7).
- 12 -
J-S01033-15
Instantly, the court conducted a bench trial and convicted Appellant of
multiple sex offenses. At the sentencing hearing, the court applied Section
9718 to Appellant’s rape of a child and aggravated indecent assault of a child
convictions. (See Guideline Sentence forms, filed 5/9/14, at 1-3.) Given
this Court’s decisions in Newman, Valentine, and Wolfe, however, we
must vacate and remand for resentencing. Accordingly, we affirm
Appellant’s convictions, but we vacate the judgment of sentence, remand for
resentencing without imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, and
deny counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing;
counsel’s petition to withdraw is denied. Jurisdiction is relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/23/2015
- 13 -