Com. v. Dehner, J.
Com. v. Dehner, J. No. 1282 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Appellant James Michael Dehner was charged with multiple offenses after incidents where he watched pornography and masturbated in front of a 12‑year‑old; he pled guilty to one count of open lewdness in a negotiated plea.
- Plea agreement: Commonwealth recommended a standard‑range sentence and dismissal of remaining charges; court imposed 6–12 months’ incarceration, consecutive to an unrelated sentence.
- Appellant filed a nunc pro tunc post‑sentence motion seeking concurrent sentencing and work‑release eligibility; the court denied relief.
- Counsel filed an Anders/Santiago withdrawal petition and brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and identified potential issues for review; counsel provided notice to Appellant of his options.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, considered alleged Miranda violations and a delay in scheduling the preliminary hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 540, and affirmed the judgment of sentence while granting counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give Miranda warnings requires reversal | Any Miranda claim is waived by Dehner’s voluntary guilty plea; no Miranda‑coerced plea alleged | Dehner contends statements/interactions required Miranda warnings and affected rights | Waived by guilty plea; no confession or interrogation shown and no claim Miranda coerced the plea |
| Whether delay beyond Rule 540 time limits mandates relief | Delay alone does not require dismissal absent prejudice; Rule 540 violations are not automatic discharge | Dehner argues preliminary hearing occurred after the 14‑day rule (in custody) and seeks relief | Waived by guilty plea; no prejudice demonstrated and technical timing violations do not mandate dismissal |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders/Santiago | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements (review, brief referencing arguable issues, notice to client) | Dehner could oppose or file pro se brief but counsel sought withdrawal | Withdrawal granted after court’s independent review found the appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders brief content requirements for court‑appointed counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial‑interrogation warnings requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Gaul, 912 A.2d 252 (Pa. 2006) (explains scope of Miranda and what constitutes interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205 (Pa. 2007) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects except plea validity and legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. DeCosey, 371 A.2d 905 (Pa.Super. 1977) (Rule 540 timing violations do not automatically require discharge)
- Commonwealth v. Bowman, 840 A.2d 311 (Pa.Super. 2003) (courts refuse dismissal for technical procedural violations absent prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa.Super. 2006) (appellate court must independently review record where counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders‑related precedent considered in Santiago)