Com. v. Eddington, J., 210 MDA 2016

Appellant Jason Edward Eddington was convicted by a jury of four counts of theft by deception and sentenced on October 20, 2014.
Appellant represented himself at trial; post‑verdict he sought counsel for appeal and, after procedural complications, his direct appeal rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc and Christopher D. Moore, Esq. was appointed.
Counsel Moore filed a motion to withdraw and submitted an Anders‑McClendon brief asserting the appeal was frivolous, but the brief lacked the required factual summary, record citations, and an explicit statement that the appeal was frivolous.
Appellant filed pro se filings alleging ineffective assistance and requesting to proceed pro se, but did not identify the specific issues he claimed counsel failed to raise in detail to the court.
The Superior Court found counsel’s Anders brief deficient, denied counsel’s petition to withdraw, denied Appellant’s motion to proceed pro se and his ineffective‑assistance motion (to be addressed in post‑conviction proceedings), and ordered counsel to file a proper Anders/Santiago brief within 30 days; Appellant may then reply.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Counsel/State's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago	Appellant argued counsel failed to raise numerous meritorious issues and should not withdraw	Counsel asserted the appeal was frivolous and sought to withdraw under Anders/McClendon	Court held counsel’s Anders brief was deficient under Santiago and denied the motion to withdraw; ordered a compliant brief
Whether counsel’s Anders brief met Santiago requirements	Appellant argued counsel did not present issues or cite record items supporting appeal	Counsel submitted an Anders brief but provided no meaningful factual summary, record citations, or explicit frivolity statement	Court held brief failed Santiago’s four‑part requirement and could not be the basis for withdrawal
Whether Appellant should be permitted to proceed pro se on appeal	Appellant requested to proceed pro se to file his own expanded appellate brief	Counsel/state opposed; court noted Appellant’s request seemed motivated by frustration, not a genuine, informed waiver	Court denied the pro se request without prejudice and retained panel jurisdiction
Whether ineffective assistance claims may be decided on direct appeal	Appellant sought relief alleging appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issues	Counsel/state maintained ineffective assistance claims are for collateral review under Grant	Court denied the motion and directed such claims to post‑conviction collateral review (Grant rule)

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw because appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania requirements for Anders brief and counsel withdrawal on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reviewing court must independently examine the record after a proper Anders/Santiago brief)
Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (procedural note that court must decide withdrawal request before reaching merits)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally adjudicated in collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (reinforces that ineffective‑assistance claims belong in PCRA proceedings)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Pennsylvania precedent cited in conjunction with Anders)