Com. v. Henderson, M., 507 MDA 2016

Mark Adam Henderson entered counseled, negotiated nolo contendere pleas to four informations charging successive DUI (controlled substance; impaired ability) and four counts of driving while license suspended; other related charges were nolle prossed.
The court accepted the pleas after a full on-the-record colloquy and imposed an aggregate negotiated sentence of 84 to 168 months’ incarceration, plus consecutive probation on unrelated forgery counts; RRRI eligibility was noted.
Henderson filed several pro se post-sentence filings (motion to modify/reduce sentence, notice of appeal, motion to withdraw plea, motion to vacate sentence, petition to proceed pro se, and habeas petition); counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement and later an Anders petition to withdraw with a supporting brief.
Counsel’s Anders brief argued the appeal was wholly frivolous, raising only (1) whether ineffective-assistance claims may be raised on direct appeal and (2) whether a defendant may challenge the discretionary aspects of a negotiated, imposed sentence.
The Superior Court found counsel’s Anders submission in substantial compliance, conducted an independent review, denied Henderson’s pro se motions, held ineffective-assistance claims belong on collateral review (PCRA), found negotiated sentences not subject to discretionary-sentencing challenge, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Henderson's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Is counsel entitled to withdraw under Anders?	Anders counsel’s brief was insufficient to preserve issues; appellant entitled to raise pro se claims	Anders compliance was satisfied; counsel followed Santiago requirements and notified appellant	Grant withdrawal: counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago; appellate court reviewed record independently and granted withdrawal
2. May ineffective-assistance claims be raised on direct appeal?	Counsel was ineffective and that rendered the plea involuntary	Ineffective-assistance claims are generally reserved for collateral (PCRA) review	Denied on direct appeal; such claims must be raised on collateral review
3. Can Henderson challenge discretionary aspects of a negotiated/imposed sentence?	Sentence is excessive / disproportionate and procedurally flawed	Negotiated sentence, once accepted and imposed, is not subject to discretionary-sentencing challenge	Denied; negotiated and imposed sentence cannot be challenged on discretionary-sentencing grounds
4. May Henderson withdraw his nolo contendere plea after sentence (manifest injustice)?	Plea was unlawfully induced; he is innocent; counsel failed to mitigate during plea bargaining	Plea colloquy and written colloquy show plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; bare assertions of innocence insufficient	Denied; record demonstrates voluntary plea and Henderson failed to show manifest injustice

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel’s withdrawal on appeal when claim is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994) (negotiated, specific-duration plea bargain precludes later discretionary-sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015) (post-sentence bare assertions of innocence insufficient to require plea withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Myers, 642 A.2d 1103 (Pa. Super. 1994) (requirements and sufficiency of guilty-plea colloquy)
Commonwealth v. O'Malley, 957 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate independent review following Anders)
Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate independent review standard after counsel seeks withdrawal)