Com. v. Lugowski, C.
Com. v. Lugowski, C. No. 3549 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Appellant Christopher Lugowski pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault arising from an early-morning shooting outside the Waterford Inn; victims were shot inside and outside the bar. Appellant admitted involvement in a statement.
- Trial court accepted a negotiated guilty plea; appellant signed written and gave oral plea colloquies.
- Post-sentence, appellant filed a pro se motion (which did not challenge the plea); the motion was denied and counsel filed a timely notice of appeal.
- Appellate counsel (Michael J. Harper) sought to withdraw under Anders, filing a petition and an Anders brief asserting the appeal was wholly frivolous and notifying appellant of his rights.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s Anders submission, conducted an independent review of the record, found no non-frivolous issues, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence (10–20 years).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent | Lugowski contends his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Appellant’s counsel argues the claim is frivolous because plea colloquies (oral and written) show a knowing, voluntary, intelligent plea; issue was not preserved in post-sentence motion | Waived for appeal; meritless in any event — plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s procedure for withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (defines required content of an Anders brief and appellate obligations)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summarizes Anders/Santiago requirements for counsel and reviewing court)
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses right to counsel on direct appeal and applicable Anders process)
- Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reviewing court must independently assess frivolity and search for overlooked issues)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (notice requirements to appellant when counsel files to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (confirms Millisock notice obligations remain binding)
- Commonwealth v. D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2002) (rules on waiver where post-sentence motion did not raise issue)