Com. v. Martin, T.
3864 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Tracy R. Martin pled guilty to failing to stop after an accident causing damage to an attended vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3743.
- The negotiated sentence imposed was time served (~3 months) to 12 months’ imprisonment.
- Court-appointed counsel (Patrick J. Connors) filed an Anders/Santiago brief seeking permission to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous. Martin did not file a substantive response to the Anders brief but earlier identified sentence legality and ineffective assistance of counsel as issues.
- Counsel complied with withdrawal procedures (Santiago/Daniels) and notified Martin of his rights; Martin did not meaningfully develop an ineffective-assistance claim in the record.
- The court reviewed legality and discretionary-sentencing issues and concluded the sentence was within statutory limits and, as negotiated, foreclosed collateral challenge to discretionary aspects.
- The court declined to entertain ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal because they are presumptively reserved for collateral review and Martin did not waive his right to PCRA review or show a claim meritorious and apparent on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of sentence | Martin argues the sentence is illegal | Commonwealth: sentence within statutory maximum and no mandatory minimum | Court: Sentence legal; within statutory limits; claim frivolous |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Martin seeks to challenge discretionary sentence | Commonwealth: plea bargain precludes challenge to discretionary aspects | Court: Negotiated plea bars discretionary-sentencing challenge |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Martin alleges public defender rendered ineffective assistance | Commonwealth: ineffective-assistance claims are generally reserved for collateral review; no express waiver of PCRA right; claim not apparent on record | Court: Claim not appropriate for direct review and would be frivolous here |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Counsel seeks permission to withdraw as appointed counsel | Martin: (no substantive opposition to Anders brief) | Court: Granted counsel permission to withdraw; affirmed judgment of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania-specific Anders requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (requirement to notify client of rights and append letter when moving to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. O’Malley, 957 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super. 2008) (negotiated plea bars challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffectiveness claims presumptively for collateral review; direct review only if meritorious and apparent on the record)