Com. v. Lord, J., Com. v. Lord, J. No. 1866 WDA 2016

Appellant Joseph William Lord pled guilty pro se at a preliminary hearing to disorderly conduct (M3) for events on April 7, 2016; other charges were withdrawn. MDJ imposed nine months probation.
Probation officer later alleged multiple probation violations; a revocation hearing was held on November 8, 2016. Lord, represented by counsel, admitted violating several conditions (missed reporting dates, marijuana use, alcohol use, failure to pursue mental-health treatment).
Trial court accepted Lord’s admissions, revoked probation, and sentenced him to 76 days to 1 year in county prison (credit for 76 days), consecutive to other sentences.
Counsel filed an Anders brief arguing the appeal was frivolous and sought permission to withdraw. The court reviewed compliance with Anders/Santiago requirements and notified Lord of his rights; Lord did not respond.
The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found the probation violations proven by a preponderance of the evidence, concluded the appeal was frivolous, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commonwealth proved probation violations	Commonwealth relied on appellant’s admissions and probation officer testimony showing missed appointments and substance use	Lord disputed some circumstances (program efficacy, transportation issues) but admitted violations in writing and at hearing	Court held the Commonwealth met its burden by a preponderance; violations proved and revocation appropriate
Whether Anders procedural requirements were satisfied	Commonwealth/respondent supported counsel’s motion to withdraw after Anders brief	Lord did not file a response or raise additional arguable issues	Court held counsel complied with Anders/Santiago; withdrawal permitted and appellate review found no meritorious issues

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (two-step due-process framework for parole/probation revocation hearings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (procedural protections required in revocation proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 969 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standards for Gagnon I/II and proof at revocation)
Commonwealth v. Sims, 770 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2001) (preponderance standard and focus of revocation hearing)
Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (probative evidence requirement for revocation)
Commonwealth v. Kavanaugh, 482 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 1984) (hearsay and confrontation in revocation hearings)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements)