Court Opinion

ID: 9895544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:09:45.778278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:31.338278
License: Public Domain

J-S38005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ALEXANDER AARON SMITH                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 642 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 3, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002747-2021

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                          FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

       Alexander Aaron Smith appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, after he entered an

open guilty plea to three counts each of corrupt organizations and criminal

use of a communication facility, eleven counts of dealing in proceeds of

unlawful activities, seventeen counts of selling firearms to an ineligible

transferee, and twenty counts of persons not to possess firearms. Counsel

has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), and

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). After careful review,

we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S38005-23

       Smith was an active member of a gun trafficking organization1 that

operated in multiple counties, including Montgomery County, between June

2019 and January 2021. As part of the organization, Smith purchased and

sold firearms through the use of “straw” purchasers. Specifically, Smith and

his 16 cohorts would recruit individuals with no criminal records to purchase

firearms on their behalf and then, subsequently, instruct these “straw

purchasers” to falsify the required state and federal paperwork by certifying

that they were the actual buyers of the firearm despite the fact that the

firearm would be transferred to a member of Smith’s trafficking organization.

       From 2019 to 2021, Smith operated as one of the organization’s

masterminds, receiving at least seventeen firearms as a result of straw

purchases. Smith also purchased “ghost gun” kits that permitted firearms to

be assembled by an individual without the need to complete any paperwork

and then, later offered these assembled weapons for sale or trade outside

legal processes. At the time of these aforementioned transactions, Smith was

under the legal age to purchase a firearm in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, and was also statutorily prohibited from possessing, using, or

purchasing a firearm based on a prior juvenile adjudication for possession of

a firearm by a minor.

       The    Commonwealth         sought      imposition   of   mandatory   minimum

sentences, of at least five years of confinement, with respect to sixteen of
____________________________________________

1 One of Smith’s co-defendants, Taye Maurice Wynder, has an unrelated
appeal that is docketed at 619 EDA 2023.

                                            -2-
J-S38005-23

Smith’s sales of firearms to ineligible transferees, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

6111(h)(1). On September 14, 2022, Smith entered an open guilty plea to

the above-mentioned offenses. In his written guilty plea, Smith was advised

of the four bases for appealing his conviction, see Guilty Plea Questionnaire,

9/16/22, at 4, and was also told that he had “the right to file a post-sentence

motion within ten (10) days[.]” Id. at 4-5. Sentencing was deferred pending

the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI).2

       On February 3, 3023, the Honorable Wendy G. Rothstein sentenced

Smith to an aggregate sentence of 18-36 years’ imprisonment. On March 6,

2023, counsel filed a motion seeking permission from the court to file a nunc

pro tunc post-sentence motion, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720,3 claiming that such

relief was necessary due “to the Defendant’s inability to communicate with

[c]ounsel in a timely manner.”          See Motion for Nunc Pro Relief/Post-Trial

Relief, 3/6/23, at 3. The court denied Smith’s motion the same day. On March
____________________________________________

2 At the guilty plea hearing, the court also accepted the Commonwealth’s
motion to nolle pros counts 4-37, 49-139, 158-207, and 228-244 at the time
of sentencing. N.T. Open Guilty Plea Hearing, 9/14/22, at 27-28.

3 The Rules of Criminal Procedure require a defendant file post-sentence
motions challenging the validity of a guilty plea no later than 10 days after
imposition of sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1) & (B)(1)(a)(i). Within
30 days after imposition of the sentence, a defendant must submit a request
to file his post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc by demonstrating “an
extraordinary circumstance [that] excuses the tardiness.” Commonwealth
v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122, 1128 (Pa. Super. 2003). A trial court has the
discretion to grant a request to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc and
that decision will not be reversed unless the court abuses its discretion. Id.
(citation omitted).

                                           -3-
J-S38005-23

6, 2023, Smith filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.4

        Prior to reviewing Smith’s appellate claims, we must address counsel’s

petition to withdraw. Pursuant to Anders, McClendon, and Santiago, when

counsel determines that there are no non-frivolous issues for review, counsel

must:     (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, 978 A.2d at 358-61. Further, Santiago requires counsel to include

in the Anders brief: (1) a summary of the facts and procedural history, with

citations to the record; (2) reference to anything in the record that counsel

believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) counsel’s conclusion that the

appeal is frivolous; and (4) counsel's reasons for concluding the appeal is

frivolous.   Id. at 361. Substantial compliance with these requirements is

sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa. Super.

2007).

        Instantly,   counsel    has   substantially   complied   with   the   briefing

requirements under applicable law. See Santiago, supra; Wrecks, supra.
____________________________________________

4 The 30th day following the entry of Smith’s judgment of sentence fell on a

Sunday. Thus, his notice of appeal was timely filed on Monday, March 6, 2023.

                                           -4-
J-S38005-23

Counsel has filed a separate petition with this Court seeking to withdraw from

representation. Moreover, in his Anders brief, counsel provides a summary

of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; refers to items

in the record that might arguably support the appeal; states she engaged in

a conscientious examination of the record; concludes the appeal is wholly

frivolous; and articulates relevant facts, controlling case law, and rules on

point. Moreover, we note that counsel attached to her brief a letter, dated

June 15, 2023, advising Smith that she was seeking to withdraw and that he

could retain new counsel or proceed pro se. Counsel further indicated that

she provided Smith with a copy of her Anders brief. Accordingly, we will now

conduct our independent review of the issues raised by counsel and

determine, using our own judgment, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Santiago, supra.

      In her Anders brief, counsel refers to two potential claims: (1) that the

trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to play a video during

sentencing that was sent to Smith without him first requesting it; and (2) that

the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence that exceeded the

guidelines where it imposed consecutive mandatory sentences despite

mitigating evidence. Anders Brief, at 14.

      At Smith’s sentencing hearing, the court allowed the Commonwealth to

play a video sent to Smith by one of his co-defendants, over defense counsel’s

objection.   The video depicts his co-defendant spitting on a memorial

dedicated to slain Plymouth Township Police Officer Brad Fox, who was killed

                                      -5-
J-S38005-23

with an illegally purchased firearm. Smith contends this video was irrelevant

and, due to its prejudicial nature, impermissibly “encouraged th[e trial c]ourt

to impose a harsher than appropriate sentence.”             Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Statement, 3/20/23, at 1.

       In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court explains that it references the

history of “the ‘Brad Fox Law’ during every sentencing hearing which involves

a straw purchase, regardless of the municipality in which a particular

defendant resides.”       Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/23, at 13-14 (emphasis in

original).5 Moreover, the court reiterated the fact that it “did not take the

video into consideration when it imposed [its] sentence as evidenced by the

fact that the court did not include any reference to the video in its reasoning

for the sentence imposed.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/23, at 13.6

____________________________________________

5 The Brad Fox Law subjects individuals who have been convicted of a second

or subsequent straw purchase offense to a mandatory five-year sentence.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(h)(1).

6  Smith has failed to include a copy of either the video or the notes of
testimony from his sentencing hearing in the certified record on appeal. The
five-and-one-half pages of notes from this hearing, that Smith has attached
as “Appendix ‘B’” to his appellate brief, simply do not replace the certified
notes of testimony from his sentencing hearing. See Rosselli v. Rosselli,
750 A.2d 355, 359 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“It is well-settled that ‘[t]his Court may
review and consider only items [that] have been duly certified in the record
on appeal’ and ‘a document not filed of record does not become part of the
certified record by merely making a reproduction and placing that
reproduction in the reproduced record.’”) (citations omitted). We, thus, are
precluded from a thorough and complete review of this issue. Moreover, to
the extent that this issue invokes the discretionary aspect of Smith’s sentence,
that claim is waived because he failed to file a timely post-sentence motion.
See infra, at 6-7.

                                           -6-
J-S38005-23

       Instantly, we find no error with the court’s admission of the video.

Although a sentencing proceeding must comport with due process, it is well-

established that “a proceeding held to determine sentence is not a trial, and

the court is not bound by the restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable

to trials.”   Commonwealth v. Medley, 725 A.2d 1225, 1229 (Pa. Super.

1999). Accord Commonwealth v. Orsino, 178 A.2d 843, 846 (Pa. Super.

1962).

       Smith’s second issue concerning the discretionary aspect of his sentence

is waived due his failure to file a timely post-sentence motion.            See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(a)(1).7

       Having determined that the appeal is wholly frivolous, Santiago,

supra, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm Smith’s judgment

of sentence.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

____________________________________________

7 To the extent Smith argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his request to permit him to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc,
we find the claim waived for failure to include it in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
However, even if we did not find it waived, we would find it meritless.
Instantly, Smith signed a guilty plea questionnaire acknowledging that he was
advised of his right to file a post-sentence motion within 10 days. See Guilty
Plea Questionnaire, 9/16/22, at 4-5. Moreover, Smith has failed to explain
how the court abused its discretion in denying his motion.                   See
Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133, 136 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(“extension of the filing period . . . will be permitted only in extraordinary
circumstances, namely fraud or some breakdown in the processes of the
court”) (citations omitted).

                                           -7-
J-S38005-23

Date: 11/7/2023

                  -8-