J-S39027-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
SPENCER A. JEFFERSON
Appellant No. 2893 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 28, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0005046-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2019
Appellant, Spencer A. Jefferson, appeals from the August 28, 2018
judgment of sentence imposing 20 to 40 years of incarceration for attempted
murder. Counsel has filed a brief and petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978
A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s
petition to withdraw.
The record reveals that the victim, who had been Appellant’s girlfriend
for several years and with whom Appellant had a child, obtained a Protection
From Abuse (“PFA”) order against him on January 3, 2017. N.T. Guilty Plea,
3/27/18, at 7. In the early hours of September 29, 2017, after a contentious
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39027-19
child custody exchange the evening before, Appellant entered the victim’s
apartment and stabbed her repeatedly with a butcher knife. Id. at 8-9. The
victim’s new boyfriend, who was outside smoking when Appellant entered,
heard the victim screaming. Id. He reentered the apartment and subdued
Appellant until police arrived. Id. The victim had been stabbed 33 times and
suffered two collapsed lungs, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney failure,
gastric perforation, and shock due to massive blood loss. Id. at 9. Appellant’s
two-year-old son, who was in a bed next to the victim, was covered in blood.
Id. The victim was hospitalized for three weeks and continues to suffer
significant complications from her injuries. Id. at 9-10.
On March 27, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to
attempted homicide and burglary stemming from the September 29, 2017
attack on his former girlfriend. The parties agreed that the sentences should
run concurrently, but the plea was open as to the length of the sentence. At
the conclusion of the August 28, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court
imposed concurrent sentences of 20 to 40 years of incarceration for attempted
homicide and 10 to 20 years of incarceration for burglary. Appellant filed a
timely post-sentence motion on September 5, 2018. The trial court denied
that motion on September 13, 2018. On October 5, 2018, Appellant filed this
timely appeal.
Counsel has filed brief and petition to withdraw in accordance with
Anders and Santiago. Pursuant to Santiago, the brief must:
-2- J-S39027-19
(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.
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361). Counsel must also provide the Anders brief to
the client and attach a letter advising the client of the right to retain new
counsel, proceed pro se, or raise points of law in addition to those addressed
in the Anders Brief. Id.
Our review of counsel’s filings indicates that he has complied with the
foregoing. The brief meets the four Santiago requirements, and Counsel’s
letter to Appellant advised him of his available courses of action. Appellant
has taken no action. The Anders Brief addresses the trial court’s sentencing
discretion, an issue Appellant preserved in his timely post-sentence motion.
As noted, Appellant preserved this issue in a timely post-sentence motion and
he has filed a timely notice of appeal. The Anders Brief contains a statement
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) stating that Appellant believes the 40-year
maximum term of his sentence is manifestly excessive, disproportionate to
the offense he committed, and not in accord with Appellant’s need for
rehabilitation. Anders Brief at 11.
-3- J-S39027-19
We must consider whether this presents a substantial question. “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.’”
Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008)), appeal
denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013). In Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d
1044 (Pa. Super. 2011), the defendant received a sentence of 23 months to
15 years of incarceration, and he argued the 15 year maximum was excessive
because it would affect the timing of his release on parole. Id. at 1049. In
rejecting his argument, this Court noted that the sentencing guidelines apply
to the minimum, not maximum term. Id. Thus, “when the sentence is within
the range prescribed by statute, a challenge to the maximum sentence
imposed does not set forth a substantial question as to the appropriateness of
the sentence under the guidelines.” Id. at 1049-50.
Instantly, Appellant’s 20-year minimum (which also happens to be the
statutory maximum) was the top of the guideline range. In accord with
Yeomans, Appellant’s proposed challenge to the 40-year maximum term
does not present a substantial question that his sentence was inappropriate
under the guidelines. We agree with counsel’s conclusion that this issue is
frivolous.
-4- J-S39027-19
Next, we conduct an independent review of the record. Santiago, 978
a.2d at 355 n.5. Having rejected Appellant’s challenge to the maximum term,
we discern no other arguable basis upon which Appellant could challenge the
trial court’s sentencing discretion. As noted, Appellant pled guilty and was
sentenced in accord with his plea. “[U]pon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant
waives all claims and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of
the court, the validity of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of
the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1275
(Pa. 2014). In any event, Appellant’s sentence fell within the guidelines, the
trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation, and the court
explained its rationale for the sentence on the record at sentencing. N.T.
Sentencing, 8/28/18, at 4, 43-49. The guilty plea transcript reveals that the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S39027-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
SPENCER A. JEFFERSON
Appellant No. 2893 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 28, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0005046-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2019
Appellant, Spencer A. Jefferson, appeals from the August 28, 2018
judgment of sentence imposing 20 to 40 years of incarceration for attempted
murder. Counsel has filed a brief and petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978
A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s
petition to withdraw.
The record reveals that the victim, who had been Appellant’s girlfriend
for several years and with whom Appellant had a child, obtained a Protection
From Abuse (“PFA”) order against him on January 3, 2017. N.T. Guilty Plea,
3/27/18, at 7. In the early hours of September 29, 2017, after a contentious
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S39027-19
child custody exchange the evening before, Appellant entered the victim’s
apartment and stabbed her repeatedly with a butcher knife. Id. at 8-9. The
victim’s new boyfriend, who was outside smoking when Appellant entered,
heard the victim screaming. Id. He reentered the apartment and subdued
Appellant until police arrived. Id. The victim had been stabbed 33 times and
suffered two collapsed lungs, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney failure,
gastric perforation, and shock due to massive blood loss. Id. at 9. Appellant’s
two-year-old son, who was in a bed next to the victim, was covered in blood.
Id. The victim was hospitalized for three weeks and continues to suffer
significant complications from her injuries. Id. at 9-10.
On March 27, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to
attempted homicide and burglary stemming from the September 29, 2017
attack on his former girlfriend. The parties agreed that the sentences should
run concurrently, but the plea was open as to the length of the sentence. At
the conclusion of the August 28, 2018 sentencing hearing, the trial court
imposed concurrent sentences of 20 to 40 years of incarceration for attempted
homicide and 10 to 20 years of incarceration for burglary. Appellant filed a
timely post-sentence motion on September 5, 2018. The trial court denied
that motion on September 13, 2018. On October 5, 2018, Appellant filed this
timely appeal.
Counsel has filed brief and petition to withdraw in accordance with
Anders and Santiago. Pursuant to Santiago, the brief must:
-2- J-S39027-19
(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.
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361). Counsel must also provide the Anders brief to
the client and attach a letter advising the client of the right to retain new
counsel, proceed pro se, or raise points of law in addition to those addressed
in the Anders Brief. Id.
Our review of counsel’s filings indicates that he has complied with the
foregoing. The brief meets the four Santiago requirements, and Counsel’s
letter to Appellant advised him of his available courses of action. Appellant
has taken no action. The Anders Brief addresses the trial court’s sentencing
discretion, an issue Appellant preserved in his timely post-sentence motion.
As noted, Appellant preserved this issue in a timely post-sentence motion and
he has filed a timely notice of appeal. The Anders Brief contains a statement
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) stating that Appellant believes the 40-year
maximum term of his sentence is manifestly excessive, disproportionate to
the offense he committed, and not in accord with Appellant’s need for
rehabilitation. Anders Brief at 11.
-3- J-S39027-19
We must consider whether this presents a substantial question. “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.’”
Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008)), appeal
denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013). In Commonwealth v. Yeomans, 24 A.3d
1044 (Pa. Super. 2011), the defendant received a sentence of 23 months to
15 years of incarceration, and he argued the 15 year maximum was excessive
because it would affect the timing of his release on parole. Id. at 1049. In
rejecting his argument, this Court noted that the sentencing guidelines apply
to the minimum, not maximum term. Id. Thus, “when the sentence is within
the range prescribed by statute, a challenge to the maximum sentence
imposed does not set forth a substantial question as to the appropriateness of
the sentence under the guidelines.” Id. at 1049-50.
Instantly, Appellant’s 20-year minimum (which also happens to be the
statutory maximum) was the top of the guideline range. In accord with
Yeomans, Appellant’s proposed challenge to the 40-year maximum term
does not present a substantial question that his sentence was inappropriate
under the guidelines. We agree with counsel’s conclusion that this issue is
frivolous.
-4- J-S39027-19
Next, we conduct an independent review of the record. Santiago, 978
a.2d at 355 n.5. Having rejected Appellant’s challenge to the maximum term,
we discern no other arguable basis upon which Appellant could challenge the
trial court’s sentencing discretion. As noted, Appellant pled guilty and was
sentenced in accord with his plea. “[U]pon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant
waives all claims and defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of
the court, the validity of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of
the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1275
(Pa. 2014). In any event, Appellant’s sentence fell within the guidelines, the
trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation, and the court
explained its rationale for the sentence on the record at sentencing. N.T.
Sentencing, 8/28/18, at 4, 43-49. The guilty plea transcript reveals that the
trial court conducted a detailed, on-the-record colloquy, in accord with
Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(A) and its accompanying official comment. N.T. Guilty Plea,
3/27/18, at 2-12.
It appears from our independent review of the record that any issue
Appellant attempted to raise in this direct appeal would have been frivolous.
We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to
withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
-5- J-S39027-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/19
-6-