Com. v. DiGangi, M.
Com. v. DiGangi, M. No. 3086 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 19, 2017Background
- Michael DiGangi pled guilty to one count of DUI — general impairment, on August 15, 2016; a second related DUI charge was withdrawn as part of the plea agreement.
- The trial court sentenced DiGangi to six months’ incarceration with immediate parole, ordered a drug/alcohol evaluation, compliance with probation/parole rules and mental-health treatment, and imposed a $200 fine.
- DiGangi filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary due to his mental condition; the trial court denied the motion on August 25, 2016.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and application to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous but raising the issue whether the plea was knowing and voluntary given possible mental-health concerns.
- The Superior Court evaluated whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago technical requirements and then independently reviewed the record for any non-frivolous issues.
- The Superior Court found the plea colloquy satisfied Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 inquiries, the trial court adequately questioned DiGangi about mental-health and medication, and concluded the voluntary-plea claim was frivolous; counsel’s withdrawal was permitted and the sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DiGangi’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | DiGangi argued trial court should have inquired further into his mental condition because statements at plea hearing suggested it might affect plea knowingness | Trial court contends the record shows a proper on-the-record colloquy and adequate inquiry into mental-health and medication, satisfying Rule 590 | Court held plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered; mental-health inquiry was adequate and the claim is frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (criminal appellate counsel may move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous and must provide a brief outlining potential issues)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (defining technical Anders brief requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (counsel’s petition to withdraw must be resolved before merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court must independently review the record after Anders/Santiago compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellant must be advised of right to new counsel, proceed pro se, or raise other points after receiving Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explaining procedural requirements for Anders withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for manifest injustice and Rule 590 plea colloquy requirements)