Com. v. Davis, H.
Com. v. Davis, H. No. 1641 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- On Feb. 26, 2015, Temple University police stopped Hykeem Davis for traffic violations; Davis drove away, ran over an officer’s foot, resisted arrest, and was subdued by multiple officers.
- On Dec. 16, 2015, Davis pled guilty (negotiated plea) to simple assault and resisting arrest in exchange for 1 to 23 months’ incarceration with immediate parole and 2 years’ probation.
- Davis filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming the Probation Department placed him on “high-risk probation” imposing unspecified additional obligations beyond the negotiated sentence.
- The trial court denied the post-sentence motion by operation of law; Davis appealed but counsel failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- Defense counsel petitioned to withdraw under Anders/Santiago, filed an Anders brief, and notified Davis of his rights; the Superior Court conducted an independent review.
- The Superior Court found counsel met Anders/Santiago technical requirements, deemed the plea-withdrawal claim frivolous because the post-sentence motion failed to identify specific probation conditions, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s withdrawal (noting counsel’s failure to file a 1925(b) statement was per se ineffective but harmless here).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Davis’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Davis: Probation Dept. imposed “high-risk” conditions beyond the negotiated sentence, so he should withdraw plea | Commonwealth: Davis (via counsel) failed to identify specific additional probation conditions that would show the plea agreement was violated | Denied — claim frivolous; post-sentence motion failed to allege specific additional obligations, so no showing of manifest injustice |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago | Counsel: Appeal is frivolous; complied with Anders/Santiago and provided defendant required notices | Appellant: (no viable opposing brief presented) | Granted — technical Anders/Santiago requirements met; Superior Court performed independent review and found no non-frivolous issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standards for Anders brief content)
- Commonwealth v. Broaden, 980 A.2d 124 (Pa. Super. 2009) (post-sentence plea-withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review record after Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedural requirements and notice obligations when counsel seeks to withdraw)