Com. v. Jones, K.
449 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- Jones pleaded guilty to burglary, conspiracy to burglary, robbery, conspiracy to robbery, unlawful restraint (two counts), unlawful restraint of a minor, and terroristic threats; aggregate sentence 7 to 20 years.
- On March 4, 2016, Jones filed a pro se post-sentence motion to modify, seeking 2 to 10 years; the trial court did not rule.
- Counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement and later an Anders brief with a petition to withdraw; Appellant did not file a pro se brief or new counsel brief.
- The Anders brief and withdrawal petition were reviewed under Santiago and Goodwin standards to ensure non-frivolous appeal.
- Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago and proceeded to independently assess the merits; no preserved non-frivolous issues were found.
- Court held that Jones’s negotiated sentence terms limit discretionary review; modification would undermine the plea agreement; judgment of sentence affirmed and counsel’s withdrawal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago. | Jones's appeal may raise issues; counsel must pursue them. | Counsel determined no non-frivolous issues exist and complied with Anders/Santiago. | Counsel withdrawal granted; review proceeds on Anders brief. |
| Whether Jones’s post-sentence motion was valid or a nullity due to counseled representation. | Post-sentence relief could be pursued. | Counseled defendant’s pro se motion is a nullity. | Pro se motion treated as a nullity; relief denied on this basis. |
| Whether discretionary aspects of sentence could be reviewed after a negotiated guilty plea. | Discretionary challenges should be reviewable post-plea. | Negotiated term bars discretionary review of the sentence. | Discretionary review barred; plea terms unambiguously defined sentence. |
| Whether the negotiated sentence could be reduced without consent of the Commonwealth. | Commonwealth consent not required for modification. | Modification would deprive Commonwealth of the full benefit of the plea. | Modification would be impermissible; not permitted by plea agreement. |
| Whether the appeal has any non-frivolous issues preserved for review. | There may be arguable issues to raise. | Record shows no preserved non-frivolous issues. | No preserved non-frivolous issues; appeal deemed wholly frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa.Super.2007) (en banc standard for withdrawing Anders counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.2009) (requirements for Anders brief and withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa.Super.2007) (pro se post-sentence motion by counseled defendant is a nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa.Super.2007) (substantial compliance with Anders/Santiago suffices)
- Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244 (Pa.Super.2006) (independent review required to determine frivolousness)