Com. v. Lee, R.
2948 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- On June 10, 2015, Robert Lee pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (PWID), criminal conspiracy, and being a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (VUFA) arising from an August 30, 2013 controlled buy and related searches.
- During the controlled buy police observed Lee sell Oxycodone and Xanax; police recovered pills, cash, and the phone used to arrange the buy from Lee; a subsequent search of a nearby home produced operable firearms and additional Oxycodone.
- At plea colloquy Lee acknowledged his plea was voluntary, informed, and intelligent. The trial court initially sentenced him to concurrent 4–10 year terms, then granted reconsideration and reduced each to 3½–7 years (concurrent) with a five‑year probation tail.
- Appellant filed a direct appeal without first filing a post‑sentence motion challenging the revised sentence; new counsel sought to pursue several claims and ultimately filed an Anders/Santiago brief and motion to withdraw.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, concluded counsel satisfied the procedural requirements, granted leave to withdraw, and independently reviewed the record for frivolousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for VUFA | Lee: he did not own or reside in the house where guns were found, so insufficient evidence he possessed them | Commonwealth: plea waived nonjurisdictional sufficiency claims | Waived by guilty plea; cannot challenge sufficiency on direct appeal after plea |
| Ineffective assistance re: pleading to VUFA | Lee: plea counsel ineffectively advised him to plead guilty to VUFA | Commonwealth: ineffectiveness claims must be deferred to collateral review | Deferred to PCRA collateral review under Grant (not considered on direct appeal) |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Lee: below‑mitigated 3½–7 year sentence is excessive/abuse of discretion | Commonwealth: sentencing challenge not preserved by post‑sentence motion or contemporaneous objection | Waived for failure to preserve in post‑sentence motion or at sentencing (cannot reach merits) |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to preserve sentence challenge | Lee: counsel failed to inform him to file a post‑sentence motion to preserve sentencing claim | Commonwealth: ineffectiveness claim must be deferred | Deferred to collateral review under Grant (not addressed on direct appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania requirements for Anders‑type briefs)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedures for counsel withdrawal and review of Anders briefs)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects including sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2011) (requirements to reach discretionary sentencing claims on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discretionary sentencing claims must be raised in post‑sentence motion or at sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 25 A.3d 371 (Pa. Super. 2011) (limitations on addressing ineffectiveness on direct appeal in light of Grant)