Com. v. Jones, T., 513 MDA 2017

Background

Appellant Traci Lynn Jones was observed shoplifting $436.51 in merchandise from Waynesboro Walmart on April 10, 2016; arrested in the parking lot and charged with retail theft (18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1)).
A jury convicted Jones after a one-day trial on December 20, 2016, finding the value exceeded $150 (misdemeanor of the first degree).
Sentenced February 1, 2017 to 9–23 months’ incarceration plus 37 months’ probation; post-sentence motion denied and timely appeal filed.
Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous; appellant did not file a response; Commonwealth did not file a brief.
Counsel raised three potential issues: discretionary-sentencing challenge, jury‑selection fair‑cross‑section claim, and alleged race/gender discrimination in charging and prosecution.
The Superior Court conducted the required Anders/Santiago review, independently examined the record, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing 9–23 months plus probation	Jones argued the court failed to adequately consider her mental health, sole caretaking responsibilities, and missed victim‑impact mitigation (sister stepped out)	Commonwealth/trial court argued sentence was legal, within standard range, and court had presentence report and considered mitigation	No substantial question; discretionary‑sentencing claim denied (no relief)
Whether jury selection violated fair‑cross‑section requirement because no African American jurors were empaneled	Jones claimed systemic exclusion of African Americans from Franklin County jury pool, denying a fair and impartial jury	Trial court noted issue not preserved in the record and thus waived	Waived for failure to preserve; court did not reach merits
Whether Jones suffered race/gender discrimination by law enforcement/Commonwealth (co‑defendant treated more leniently)	Jones argued she (African American woman) was prosecuted more severely than white male co‑defendant (Hartley), who was not arrested and charged only as a summary offense	Trial court and counsel noted the record lacks preservation and evidence; differences may be explained by race‑neutral reasons (e.g., criminal records, amounts taken)	Waived for failure to preserve; claim deemed frivolous on review

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel may withdraw on direct appeal only after demonstrating the appeal is frivolous and following procedural safeguards)
Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders guidance adapted for Pennsylvania; brief must summarize facts, identify arguable issues, and explain frivolousness)
Cartrette v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking withdrawal on appeal)
Tukhi v. Commonwealth, 149 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court must independently review the record after Anders/Santiago filing)
Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑part test for discretionary‑sentencing review)
Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discretionary aspects of sentence review is limited)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (what constitutes a substantial question for sentencing review)
Kane v. Commonwealth, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claim that court insufficiently considered mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question)
Finnecy v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (presence of a presentence investigation report supports presumption that judge considered mitigating information)
Clarke v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same principle regarding presentence report)
Flowers v. Commonwealth, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (after Anders/Santiago technical compliance, appellate court must independently search for non‑frivolous issues)