Com. v. Baker, J., 56 MDA 2016

On May 21, 2014 two masked intruders entered the Mohlas’ home at night; one assaulted the husband with a flashlight, held a gun to his head, and forced him to produce a money bag; the other kept the wife on the floor and was later identified by her as Jeremie Baker.
The Mohlas owned several businesses and routinely brought daily cash home; portions of cash had gone missing in the weeks before the burglary, and the Mohlas suspected Baker or his brother.
A jury convicted Baker of burglary, robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii)), and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 903).
Baker received an aggregate sentence of 11 to 22 years on February 17, 2015; no direct appeal was filed, and Baker successfully obtained reinstatement of post-sentence rights via the PCRA for counsel’s failure to perfect a direct appeal.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief arguing the sufficiency claims Baker wished to raise were frivolous and sought permission to withdraw; the Superior Court found counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago adequate and reviewed the sufficiency claims on the merits.

Issue	Commonwealth’s Argument	Baker’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Baker of robbery under § 3701(a)(1)(ii)	Victims’ testimony showed aggressive, threatening conduct during a theft (gun to husband’s head; threats to shoot; command to wife to lie down), and Baker assisted the armed intruder, supporting shared intent and robbery conviction	Insufficient: Baker did not carry a weapon, did not make threats, and merely attended to the wife to keep her from harm	Affirmed — evidence (including assistance to the armed intruder and victims’ fear) was sufficient; claim frivolous
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Baker of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery	Circumstantial evidence (two intruders acting in concert, coordinated actions, flight) supports an agreement, shared intent, and an overt act by co-conspirator(s)	Insufficient: conspiracy requires proof of agreement and at least two charged co-conspirators; only Baker was charged for conspiracy	Affirmed — totality of circumstantial evidence supported conspiracy elements; claim frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 A.2d 738 (Pa. 1967) (procedural framework for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 715 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Anders procedures for counsel withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (robbery requires threat or placing victim in fear of immediate serious bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Everett, 443 A.2d 1142 (Pa. 1982) (assistance to another during a crime can show shared intent)
Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (elements of criminal conspiracy)
Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2000) (overt act in conspiracy need not be committed by defendant)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749 (Pa. Super. 2012) (conspirator liable for co-conspirators’ actions in furtherance of conspiracy)
Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2009) (flight and circumstantial evidence can support conspiracy inference)
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial compliance with Anders may suffice for withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Huddleston, 55 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA relief to reinstate direct-appeal rights when counsel abandons appeal)