Com. v. Haven, E.
2279 EDA 2023
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 18, 2024Background
- Earl Haven was convicted in Philadelphia after a 2019 incident where he shot Lenwood Barnes, who was in a relationship with Haven's child's mother.
- At trial, Barnes claimed Haven shot him without provocation; Haven argued self-defense, claiming Barnes fired first.
- Haven was acquitted by a jury on all assault-related charges, but convicted of carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia; he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
- He was sentenced to 7.5–15 years in prison, followed by five years of probation; he filed a post-sentence motion (motion for reconsideration of sentence) and then appealed.
- On appeal, Haven’s counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, contending the appeal was frivolous, having complied with all procedural withdrawal requirements.
- The Superior Court independently reviewed the record to determine whether any non-frivolous issues were available for appeal; finding none, the court granted counsel's withdrawal and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Haven's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion by sentencing at the top of guidelines, not considering self-defense? | Self-defense should be mitigating, sentence too harsh. | Sentence is within guidelines; no abuse, no substantial question. | Waived—argument not raised below, no substantial question; would be frivolous on appeal. |
| Are there any non-frivolous issues regarding the guilty plea? | No argument made; possibly attack voluntariness. | No challenge to plea below; only sentence reconsideration requested. | Waived—issue not preserved in post-sentence motion; would be frivolous on appeal. |
| Was evidence sufficient for firearm convictions under §§ 6106, 6108? | Sufficiency of evidence not briefed on appeal. | Not challenged in 1925(b) statement. | Waived—not preserved in required concise statement; any challenge would be frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (advises process for counsel withdrawal on appeal when appeal is believed to be frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (sets procedural requirements for counsel’s Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 715 A.2d 1203 (details steps for appellate counsel withdrawal under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (discusses process and standards for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentences)