Com. v. Cunningham, J.
2111 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 23, 2016Background
- In July 2015 Pennsylvania authorities arrested James Cunningham on an outstanding Colorado fugitive warrant stemming from alleged offenses in April 2013 (including attempted second-degree murder). Extradition proceedings commenced in Luzerne County.
- Cunningham sought to challenge extradition, asserting Colorado had not produced a Governor’s Warrant within statutory timeframes; he filed habeas petitions in October and November 2015.
- Judge Gartley, after a November 13, 2015 hearing, gave the Commonwealth 30 days from November 4, 2015 to produce a Governor’s Warrant and remanded Cunningham to county jail; the Commonwealth produced a Governor’s Warrant dated November 16, 2015 and re-filed an extradition petition.
- Cunningham filed appeals from the November 13 and December 2, 2015 orders (the latter following a hearing that granted extradition and denied a stay). He was ultimately transferred to Colorado.
- Appellant’s counsel filed Anders-style petitions to withdraw and Anders briefs at both docket numbers; the Commonwealth did not file a responsive brief in the Superior Court. The Superior Court found procedural defects in counsel’s Anders paperwork and denied the petitions to withdraw without prejudice, remanding for compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extradition was defective because a Governor’s Warrant was not timely produced | Commonwealth argued it cured the defect by producing a Governor’s Warrant and re-filing extradition; extradition proper | Cunningham argued Commonwealth held him beyond statutory time limits without Governor’s Warrant, violating habeas protections | Superior Court did not reach merits; factual record unclear and extradition was ultimately granted by trial court and Cunningham transferred to Colorado |
| Whether trial court erred in granting extradition and denying stay pending appeal | Commonwealth supported extradition; urged custody transfer | Cunningham argued habeas and procedural defects warranted stay | Trial court granted extradition and denied stay; Superior Court did not review merits due to Anders compliance issue |
| Whether appeal counsel properly complied with Anders/Santiago when seeking to withdraw | N/A (Commonwealth did not brief) | Cunningham expected counsel to notify him of rights and provide proper Anders brief and petition | Superior Court held counsel’s Anders filings were deficient (lack of proof of client notice and incomplete Anders brief) and denied petition to withdraw without prejudice; remanded for cure |
| Whether appeal is moot because appellant was removed to demanding state | Commonwealth might argue mootness precludes review | Cunningham would argue procedural defects still warrant review | Superior Court noted potential mootness (citing precedent) but did not resolve mootness because Anders technical requirements were unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (detailing required content of an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural guidance on denying withdrawal petitions and remanding for compliance with Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Caffrey, 508 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 1986) (holding asylum state cannot review denial of habeas where defendant already taken to demanding state)