Com. v. McRae, O., Com. v. McRae, O. No. 1023 EDA 2015

Appellant Orrin Winston McRae pleaded guilty and was sentenced on February 4, 2014; plea counsel was Attorney Dawn Sutphin of the Delaware County Public Defender's Office.
A written guilty plea colloquy, including a detailed statement of post‑sentence rights, was completed and signed by both McRae and counsel.
No appellate action was taken after sentencing; three months later McRae filed a pro se PCRA petition (May 8, 2014) alleging ineffective assistance and seeking counsel.
The PCRA court appointed Attorney Henry DiBenedetto Forrest to file an amended petition; Forrest later filed a no‑merit letter and an application to withdraw without addressing whether plea counsel abandoned McRae post‑sentencing.
The PCRA court granted counsel leave to withdraw, issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, and ultimately dismissed the PCRA petition on April 2, 2015; McRae appealed pro se.
The dissent (Judge Shogan) concluded the record lacks factual development on whether appointed plea counsel abandoned McRae post‑sentence and would remand for the PCRA court to determine abandonment rather than immediately reinstating direct appeal rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointed plea counsel abandoned appellant post‑sentencing by failing to pursue post‑sentence or direct appellate proceedings	McRae argues counsel abandoned him because no appellate steps were taken and counsel did not withdraw by court order	Commonwealth/record suggests only the standard written colloquy exists; no clear record that counsel consulted or affirmatively abandoned representation	Dissent finds record insufficient for appellate fact‑finding and would remand to the PCRA court to determine abandonment
Whether appellate/post‑sentence procedures were properly handled when PCRA counsel filed a no‑merit letter and withdrew without addressing potential abandonment by plea counsel	McRae contends PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter omitted an essential issue (abandonment), depriving PCRA court of opportunity to rule	Commonwealth relied on procedural disposition; no‑merit practice can discharge PCRA counsel if properly executed	Dissent notes the omission and that appellate court should not resolve factual abandonment on the certified record; remand recommended

Commonwealth v. Floyd, 937 A.2d 494 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Pennsylvania rule on appointment)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (counsel may select arguments to present on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Padden, 783 A.2d 299 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discusses appellate obligations of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Librizzi, 810 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 2002) (attorney must competently represent client until withdrawn; remand appropriate to resolve representation issues)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (appellate courts are not factfinders)
Commonwealth v. Grundza, 819 A.2d 66 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court should not make initial factual findings)
Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa.) (Anders procedure and counsel’s obligations when filing petitions for allowance of appeal)
Commonwealth v. Alberta, 974 A.2d 1158 (Pa.) (appointed counsel complying with Anders and permitted to withdraw discharges direct‑appeal obligations)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for court review when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)