Com. v. Maxwell, J.
2014 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- In early morning of Dec. 4, 2014, Corry police stopped a black Ford truck after it failed to stop at a stop sign; driver was Jeffery Scott Maxwell.
- Officer asked for license/registration/insurance; Maxwell at first refused and then said, “You got me, I’m drunk.”
- Officer discovered Maxwell’s license was suspended and, after a pat-down, found a plastic bag of marijuana in Maxwell’s jacket; Maxwell admitted it was marijuana, later confirmed by testing.
- Maxwell was tried by jury and convicted of possession of marijuana (misdemeanor) and multiple summary traffic offenses; sentenced to 60 days’ incarceration on Nov. 23, 2015.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous; Maxwell did not file a pro se response and the Commonwealth declined to file a brief.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, independently reviewed the record, found the weight-of-the-evidence claim waived for failure to preserve, found no other non-frivolous issues, granted withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Maxwell asserted the verdict shocked the conscience and demanded a new trial on weight grounds | Trial court/Commonwealth argued weight claim not preserved because no post-trial or post-sentence motion was filed | Waived for failure to file a Rule 607 post-trial or post-sentence motion; claim not preserved on appeal |
| Whether an oral motion for dismissal at trial preserved a weight claim | Maxwell (via Anders brief) argued trial counsel’s oral motion after Commonwealth rested preserved weight claim | Court responded Rule 607 requires challenge to the verdict after trial; an oral motion to dismiss at trial does not preserve a weight claim | Oral motion did not preserve a weight-of-the-evidence claim under Rule 607 |
| Whether including the weight claim in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement preserved it | Maxwell contended the 1925(b) statement raised the weight issue | Court cited precedent that raising weight in 1925(b) does not preserve it without a proper post-trial motion | Inclusion in 1925(b) did not cure failure to preserve; claim remains waived |
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and may withdraw | Appellate counsel provided factual/procedural summary, identified potentially arguable record points, concluded appeal frivolous, and notified Maxwell of options | Maxwell did not respond or retain new counsel | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago obligations; Superior Court conducted independent review, found no non-frivolous issues, and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires appointed counsel to advise court when appeal is frivolous and procedural protections for withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (specifies what an Anders brief must include under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requires independent review by appellate court for additional non-frivolous issues)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (court must independently assess frivolity after counsel meets Anders obligations)
- Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that raising a weight claim in a 1925(b) statement does not preserve it without a timely post-trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Anders-withdrawal procedural considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural obligations when counsel seeks to withdraw on direct appeal)