Com. v. Deshields, J., Com. v. Deshields, J. No. 1261 EDA 2016

On October 15, 2015, surveillance and witness identification implicated 15-year-old Julian DeShields and his brother in a residential burglary; a juvenile petition was filed and the case was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas.
DeShields entered a nolo contendere plea on March 24, 2016; the court imposed 7–23 months’ incarceration followed by three years’ probation, per the Commonwealth’s recommendation.
Post-sentence, DeShields filed a motion challenging plea validity and an appeal was filed; appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders/Santiago procedures, filing an Anders brief.
Counsel raised one arguable issue: whether DeShields’ young age required a more probing plea colloquy to ensure the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
The trial judge conducted a plea colloquy consistent with Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, DeShields completed a detailed colloquy form, and counsel represented him during the plea. No record evidence showed the plea was involuntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile’s age required a more searching plea colloquy to ensure voluntariness	DeShields argued his youth warranted additional judicial inquiry into voluntariness	Commonwealth/trial judge relied on standard Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 colloquy, counsel’s presence, and plea form to show plea was knowing	Court held standard colloquy and counsel’s representation were sufficient; no involuntariness shown, issue frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal when case is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requires Anders brief to summarize history, cite record support, state counsel’s conclusion and reasons)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawing under Anders)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 708 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 1998) (juvenile guilty-plea context; counsel’s presence distinguishes plea waiver from Miranda waiver)
Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (guilty-plea must affirmatively show defendant understood plea and consequences)
Commonwealth v. Leidig, 850 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. 2004) (nolo contendere treated same as guilty plea)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel seeks to withdraw)
Commonwealth v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant bears burden to prove plea involuntary)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (juvenile sentencing standards regarding death penalty cited for context)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile waiver analysis context)