Com. v. Carbone, C., Com. v. Carbone, C. No. 2810 EDA 2016

Christopher J. Carbone pleaded guilty to: criminal trespass (18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a)(1)(ii)), theft from a motor vehicle (18 Pa.C.S. § 3934(a)), and possession of drug paraphernalia (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32)).
He was placed on probation/under supervision, later admitted at a Gagnon II hearing (March 17, 2015) that he violated supervision, and entered an open stipulation on three dockets.
On June 3, 2015 he was sentenced: 4–8 years (docket 8198) and 2.5–5 years concurrent (docket 1479) both effective from Nov. 23, 2011; and one year probation (docket 1037).
Carbone later filed a pro se PCRA petition asserting counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal; the PCRA court granted relief and reinstated his direct-appeal rights.
Appellate counsel filed a petition to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief arguing the direct-appeal issues were frivolous; the sole arguable issue raised was ineffective assistance of Gagnon II counsel for not advising on potential sentence ranges.
The Superior Court evaluated counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and concluded the ineffective-assistance claim was improperly raised on direct appeal (Holmes rule), dismissing it without prejudice to PCRA review and granting counsel leave to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders after review	Counsel contends the appeal is frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw with an Anders brief	Carbone did not oppose; had right to retain counsel or file pro se responses	Court found counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and granted withdrawal
Whether Gagnon II counsel was ineffective for not advising on sentence ranges	Carbone (via counsel) argued counsel failed to advise him of potential sentence exposure	Commonwealth/trial court relied on Holmes: ineffective-assistance claims should be deferred to PCRA unless exception applies	Court dismissed claim on direct appeal as improper and directed Carbone to pursue PCRA relief
Whether any exception to Holmes allowed direct review of IAC claim	Carbone did not show the claim was meritorious and apparent from the record nor did he waive PCRA rights for unitary review	Trial court and Carbone offered no facts satisfying Holmes exceptions	Court refused to reach the IAC merits on direct appeal
Whether procedural steps for Anders withdrawal were satisfied	Counsel asserted he reviewed the record, sent brief to defendant, and informed him of options	Carbone raised no response or contrary evidence	Court accepted compliance and permitted counsel to withdraw

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel who seeks to withdraw on appeal to provide a brief showing the appeal is frivolous and notify the client)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standards for Anders-type withdrawal briefs)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA unless narrow exceptions apply)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (predecessor precedent on deferring IAC claims to PCRA)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due-process requirements for probation/parole revocation hearings)