Com. v. Gotshall, A., 2109 MDA 2019

Appellant Amanda Gotshall appealed an order entered November 27, 2019, in Lancaster County relating to modification of her ARD (Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition) program terms.
The Superior Court majority quashed the appeal as non-final, relying on precedent treating ARD acceptance/termination orders as interlocutory.
Judge Strassburger dissented, arguing the order here modified ARD terms (not acceptance or termination) and thus should be treated as a final, appealable order when no further order is contemplated.
The dissent emphasizes Pennsylvania’s final-order doctrine and argues that the usual concerns justifying deferral of review (piecemeal appeals, trial efficiency) are less persuasive where an ARD modification is dispositive and not subject to further trial proceedings.
The dissent also criticizes defense counsel for conceding non-appealability without filing an Anders/McClendon withdrawal brief and would instead retain jurisdiction and direct counsel to file either an advocate’s brief or a compliant Anders brief.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Majority Argument	Held
Whether an order modifying ARD terms is a final, appealable order	Modification of ARD terms that imposes new conditions and contemplates no further action is final and appealable	ARD-related orders are interlocutory; acceptance/termination and related ARD matters are not appealable (risk of piecemeal appeals)	Majority: non-final; appeal quashed. Dissent: modification can be final and appealable; would retain jurisdiction
Whether appellate counsel’s concession of non-appealability satisfied counsel’s obligations	Counsel should advocate or, if frivolous, follow Anders/McClendon procedures before abandoning claims	Counsel treated the order as non-appealable and did not file Anders-type brief	Dissent: counsel erred; would direct counsel to file an advocate’s brief or a compliant Anders brief; decline to reach merits until proper briefing

Interest of J.M., 219 A.3d 645 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explains final-order standards and policy behind avoiding piecemeal appeals)
Commonwealth v. Horn, 172 A.3d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2017) (held denial of removal from ARD is non-final/interlocutory)
Commonwealth v. Getz, 598 A.2d 1309 (Pa. Super. 1991) (acceptance into ARD is interlocutory and not appealable)
Commonwealth v. Kurilla, 570 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. 1990) (general rule that criminal appeals lie from final judgments of sentence)
Shearer v. Hafer, 177 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2018) (describes purposes of final-order rule and balancing of review costs)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel seeking to withdraw when appellate claims are frivolous)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Pennsylvania procedures supplementing Anders for counsel withdrawal)