Com. v. Jones, A.
Com. v. Jones, A. No. 3291 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Anthony Jones was convicted in a waiver trial on September 26, 2011 of possession of a firearm prohibited and sentenced on November 28, 2011 to 3.5–7 years imprisonment.
- Jones filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on July 9, 2012; new counsel entered and an amended PCRA petition was filed. The trial court reinstated Jones’s appeal rights nunc pro tunc on October 30, 2014.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw (initially deficient), then an amended Anders brief on July 19, 2016 asserting the appeal was frivolous and raising ineffective-assistance claims.
- Counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements: reviewed the record, provided the brief to Jones, and advised him of his rights to new counsel or to proceed pro se.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found the ineffectiveness claims were not appropriate for direct review (PCRA is the proper vehicle), found no exception to that rule applied, and identified no non-frivolous issues.
- The Superior Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 13, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders | Counsel contends, after review, the appeal is frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw | Jones opposes withdrawal and asserts ineffective-assistance claims | Court: Anders requirements satisfied; grant withdrawal |
| Whether appellate brief sufficiently identifies arguable issues | Counsel raised ineffective-assistance grounds and included procedural history with record citations | Jones argues counsel overlooked meritorious claims | Court: Anders brief met Santiago elements; counsel identified arguable issues |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for discovery, suppression, investigation, fingerprinting, and failing to move for hearings | Jones alleges multiple instances of trial counsel shortcomings (six specific assertions) | Commonwealth and court note these claims should be reviewed under PCRA, not on direct appeal | Court: Claims are frivolous on direct appeal; PCRA is proper forum; exceptions in Holmes do not apply |
| Whether independent review reveals any non-frivolous issues | Jones asks court to find meritorious issues overlooked by counsel | Counsel asserts none beyond those briefed | Court: Independent review found no non-frivolous issues; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (substantive requirements for Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA is primary vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims; limited exceptions for direct review)