Com. v. Hinton, J.
403 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On Nov. 19, 2015, three vehicles in a Gettysburg Lutheran Home parking lot were broken into; purses and credit cards were stolen. Surveillance showed purchases made with a stolen Chase Amazon Visa at a Gettysburg Walmart and a Gettysburg Sheetz. A Walmart employee and state troopers identified Appellant James Hinton in the surveillance photos; the Sheetz photo showed a vehicle registered to Hinton.
- Hinton admitted to Troopers Wolfe and Ashey that he was the person in the photos and that he used a credit card given to him by his nephew, who said it belonged to his girlfriend.
- A jury convicted Hinton of one count of access device fraud. The court sentenced him to 2–4 years’ incarceration on Feb. 6, 2017.
- Appellant appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, arguing two potential issues: (1) admission of prior convictions that exceeded 10 years under Pa.R.E. 609, and (2) prosecutorial misstatements in closing that allegedly tainted the jury.
- The Commonwealth Court of Appeals (Superior Court) reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and independently examined the record for preserved, non-frivolous issues.
- The Superior Court concluded the claimed issues were waived for failure to preserve objections at trial, granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior convictions under Pa.R.E. 609 | Commonwealth argued prior convictions (including 2000s convictions) were admissible for impeachment and some fell within 10-year window | Hinton (through Anders brief) argued the court applied the wrong balancing test and older convictions exceeded Rule 609(b)’s 10-year limit | Waived: Hinton made no timely objection at trial; moreover, convictions from 2004/2000 were within Rule 609(b) window, so no balancing was required for those offenses |
| Prosecutor’s alleged misstatement in closing (claim that Hinton testified he did not own a card) | Commonwealth contended closing was proper and not prejudicial | Hinton argued prosecutor misstated testimony, tainting the jury and warranting new trial | Waived: No contemporaneous objection was made at trial; claim lacked preservation and was frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirement for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief substantive requirements in Pennsylvania)
- Blauser v. Commonwealth, 166 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2017) (procedural posture when counsel files Anders withdrawal)
- Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. en banc 2013) (procedural requirements for Anders withdrawals)
- Daniels v. Commonwealth, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Santiago/Anders brief content standards)
- Flowers v. Commonwealth, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (independent review obligation of appellate court after Anders filing)
- Stafford v. Commonwealth, 749 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 2000) (failure to object to prosecutorial remarks waives claim)