253 A.3d 320
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Jeremy Lee Hensel pled guilty in three separate Allegheny County cases to terroristic threats, simple assault, and defiant trespass; he received probation and later had probation revoked with multi-count prison sentences.
- The Superior Court vacated the February 13, 2018 sentences and remanded for the limited purpose of determining RRRI (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive) Act eligibility.
- On December 17, 2018 Judge McDaniel held a resentencing-type hearing but did not formally vacate prior sentences or enter amended sentences; no amended judgments were entered at that time.
- The Superior Court quashed later appeals for lack of jurisdiction and instructed the trial court to enter amended judgments of sentence per Pa.R.A.P. 301.
- The trial court entered Amended Orders of Sentence on June 10, 2020 (imposing the same terms and addressing RRRI eligibility). Hensel appealed from those June 10, 2020 amended judgments.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief arguing Hensel’s sole claim (that Judge McDaniel lacked jurisdiction to resentence while an appeal/reargument was pending) was frivolous; the Superior Court affirmed, found the claim moot/frivolous, and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Hensel's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Hensel on Dec. 17, 2018 while a reargument/appeal was pending | Judge McDaniel lacked jurisdiction to resentence while the Superior Court had reargument pending, so the December 17 action was invalid | Any error was patently correctable and, in any event, was mooted/cured by the June 10, 2020 amended judgments; counsel argued the claim was frivolous | The court held the issue is frivolous and moot because the June 10, 2020 amended judgments remedied any defect; judgment of sentence affirmed and Anders withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal when appeal appears frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders-style brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requirement to file separate appeals when multiple dockets are resolved)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedures for addressing counsel’s petition to withdraw on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018) (court’s independent review after Anders/Santiago compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (notice to client of post-Anders options)
- Johnson v. Martofel, 797 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2002) (mootness principle: no remedy available makes issue moot)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of Anders/Santiago technical requirements)