Com. v. Hadlock, T., 2082 MDA 2015

In early morning Aug. 6, 2015, Officer Rosenberger saw a Mazda with no taillights or license plate light illuminated and turned to follow it; he observed the rear lights remained off except when the driver braked.
Officer Eiker, positioned at an intersection, independently observed the vehicle’s taillights and plate light were not illuminated and assisted with the stop.
Rosenberger identified Troy Hadlock as the driver, checked PennDOT records, and learned Hadlock’s Pennsylvania license was suspended.
Magisterial District Judge found Hadlock guilty of driving while suspended and improper rear lighting; on de novo appeal the trial court again found him guilty and sentenced him to 45 days’ partial confinement (his seventh DWS conviction).
Hadlock appealed, raising (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for inadequate questioning of officers at the summary appeal hearing and (2) insufficiency of evidence to support probable cause for the stop.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief seeking to withdraw as counsel; the Superior Court conducted an independent review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately question officers at the summary appeal hearing	Hadlock: counsel failed to properly question officers, rendering assistance ineffective	Commonwealth: claim is untimely/improper on direct appeal; ineffective assistance claims belong in collateral review	Court: claim not reviewable on direct appeal (must be raised in collateral proceedings); dismissed as improperly raised
Whether Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support probable cause for the stop	Commonwealth: officers observed non-functioning taillights/license plate light, giving articulable and reasonable suspicion to stop	Hadlock: lights were working when he left home and shortly after stop (photo taken); officers’ observations were insufficient	Court: evidence (two officers’ observations that lights were off) was sufficient to support probable cause for stop; conviction affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (defendant must be furnished copy of counsel’s brief when counsel seeks to withdraw)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements clarified for Pennsylvania counsel’s withdrawal brief)
Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2001) (officer must articulate facts supporting probable cause to stop for vehicle code violation)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally must be raised in collateral review)