Com. v. Gavilan-Cruz, P.
1238 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Pedro Luis Gavilan-Cruz was convicted by a jury of rape by forcible compulsion and multiple related sexual and assault offenses after restraining, beating, threatening, and sexually assaulting a former girlfriend over a period from evening into the next morning.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 16 to 32 years’ incarceration; no post-sentence motions were filed.
- Appellant’s initial direct appeal was dismissed because prior counsel failed to file a brief; appellant later obtained reinstatement of direct appeal rights via a PCRA petition.
- Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders/Santiago brief concluding the appeal was frivolous, identified ineffective assistance of trial counsel as the sole issue, and informed appellant of his rights to proceed pro se or retain private counsel.
- The Commonwealth declined to file a brief; the Superior Court evaluated whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago procedures and whether the ineffective-assistance claim could be decided on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago | Counsel contends the appeal is frivolous after record review and seeks leave to withdraw | Commonwealth implicitly argues no brief; court must still verify procedural compliance | Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago and granted withdrawal |
| Whether claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may be resolved on direct appeal | Gavilan-Cruz argues trial counsel was ineffective | Commonwealth and court note precedent generally requires collateral review under PCRA | Court dismissed ineffectiveness claims without prejudice to PCRA review (deferred) |
| Whether any other non-frivolous issues exist on direct appeal | Appellant (through counsel) identified no other arguable issues | Court independently reviewed the record for other issues | Court found no other non-frivolous issues and affirmed sentence |
| Procedural adequacy of Anders brief (content and notice to defendant) | Counsel provided Anders/Santiago brief to appellant and informed him of rights | Court required adherence to Santiago and Millisock standards | Court concluded counsel substantially complied with requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania standards for Anders-type briefing and withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally reserved for collateral PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel withdrawal on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defendant must be advised of right to proceed pro se or retain counsel when counsel seeks withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super. 2015) (review of counsel’s compliance with Anders withdrawal procedures)