Com. v. McLean, A.
Com. v. McLean, A. No. 1056 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Armstead McLean pleaded guilty in April 2016 to one count of possession of a controlled substance (K-2) while incarcerated; sentenced June 20, 2016 to 6–12 months, consecutive to an existing sentence, without credit for time served and found ineligible for RRRI.
- McLean filed a post-sentence motion seeking concurrent sentence (denied), timely appealed, and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
- Counsel (Megan E. Will) filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw, identifying one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by failing to consider McLean’s individual circumstances.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether counsel’s Anders submission met Pennsylvania’s technical requirements (Santiago and related precedent) before considering the merits.
- The court found multiple defects in the Anders brief: lack of record citations in the factual/procedural summary, failure to cite portions of the record that could arguably support the appeal, omission of a clear conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, and omission of one page of the 1925(b) statement.
- Because the Anders brief did not comply with the required form and content, the Court denied the petition to withdraw without prejudice and remanded, directing counsel to file within 30 days either a compliant Anders brief and petition or an advocate’s brief; Commonwealth given 30 days to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Counsel/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Anders petition and brief satisfy Pennsylvania’s procedural requirements for withdrawal | McLean seeks review of discretionary sentencing as an abuse of discretion (failure to consider individual circumstances) | Counsel submitted an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues but the brief lacked required elements and record support | Anders submission deficient; withdrawal denied and case remanded for compliant Anders brief or advocate’s brief |
| Whether the Anders brief properly summarized facts and cited the record | McLean argues sentencing record shows abuse; wants consideration of those facts | Counsel summarized but failed to provide record citations and omitted part of the 1925(b) statement | Summary without record citations is inadequate under precedent; brief rejected |
| Whether counsel articulated that the appeal is frivolous and explained reasons | McLean maintains there are arguable sentencing issues to review | Counsel did not expressly state in the brief that the appeal is frivolous nor articulate reasoning in the brief itself | Failure to state frivolousness and reasons violates Santiago/Woods requirements; brief deficient |
| Whether court should permit counsel to withdraw under Anders without compliance | McLean seeks appellate review of sentencing; opposes procedural defects allowing withdrawal | Counsel provided client letter advising rights, but procedural technicalities in brief still required | Court required full compliance before reviewing merits; directed refile within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedure for counsel to request withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (sets Pennsylvania-specific Anders requirements for summary, record citations, identification of arguable issues, and counsel’s reasoning)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (Court may not review merits before deciding adequacy of Anders submission)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (describes procedural obligations when counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses remand and directives when Anders technical requirements are unmet)
- Commonwealth v. Goodenow, 741 A.2d 783 (Pa. Super. 1999) (rejects Anders brief lacking record references and adequate procedural history)
- Commonwealth v. McGeth, 500 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 1985) (distinguishes lack of merit from frivolity in Anders context)