Com. v. Edwards, J., Com. v. Edwards, J. No. 1808 MDA 2016

Jarrett Terell Edwards pled guilty on Jan. 9, 2013 to two DUI counts and received 72 hours to 6 months’ confinement.
He was on county parole with conditions including in-person reporting, notifying parole officer of address changes, attending highway safety/driving school, and obeying the law.
In July 2016 Edwards missed required reporting, failed to notify a change of address, tested positive for alcohol at a highway-safety class on July 23, 2016, and pled guilty to possession of marijuana.
At a Gagnon I waiver, the court held a revocation hearing on Sept. 14, 2016, revoked parole, and reset his maximum confinement date to Oct. 14, 2016 (recommitted him to serve the maximum term).
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal; counsel later filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal was frivolous and identifying no non-frivolous issues.
The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found the appeal wholly frivolous (marijuana conviction alone justified revocation, particularly on a fourth revocation), granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking parole and recommitting Edwards to confinement	Edwards emphasized mitigating facts: admitted alcohol use to instructor, first positive breath test in six years, inability to leave work caused failure to report	Commonwealth relied on parole violations (missed reporting, failure to notify address change, positive alcohol test, and conviction for marijuana possession) as sufficient to revoke parole	Court found no abuse of discretion; marijuana conviction and other violations provided legally sufficient basis for revocation; appeal frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standards for Anders-style withdrawal in Pennsylvania)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (parole revocation hearing procedures)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 632 A.2d 934 (Pa. Super. 1993) (scope of review for parole-revocation decisions)
Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parole revocation principles; appellate standard)
Commonwealth v. Galletta, 864 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 2004) (conviction for new crime is sufficient basis to revoke parole)