Com. v. Morales, J.
Com. v. Morales, J. No. 1097 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Morales and co-defendant Deborah Rodriguez attempted to steal three Calvin Klein jackets from Boscov’s; loss-prevention officer Nate Roman confronted them, Morales allegedly threatened Roman with a knife and assaulted him.
- Morales was tried by jury and convicted of three counts of simple assault, two counts of robbery, one count of retail theft, one count of criminal conspiracy, and a summary harassment offense.
- Trial court sentenced Morales to an aggregate term of 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment; Morales timely appealed.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a Petition to Withdraw under Anders and Santiago, submitted an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous, and provided required notices to Morales.
- Morales filed a pro se brief raising claims including trial counsel’s failure to move for mistrial (jury seeing him in handcuffs), challenge video authenticity/Brady disclosure, denial of a sign-language/ hearing-impaired translator, and improper jury instruction concerning joint guilt for bodily injury.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s Anders submission, conducted independent review, denied relief on the substantive claims (many deferred to PCRA), granted counsel’s Petition to Withdraw, denied appointment of substitute counsel, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Morales) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel satisfied Anders/Santiago withdrawal procedures | Counsel complied with Anders requirements and Santiago brief content; appeal frivolous | Counsel did not adequately preserve issues; Morales sought substitute counsel | Court: Anders/Santiago requirements satisfied; Petition to Withdraw granted |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to move for mistrial; not contesting video authenticity) | Not litigated on the merits on appeal; such claims generally for PCRA collateral review | Claims raised on direct appeal / in pro se brief as trial counsel errors | Court: Deferred and denied on direct appeal; counsel should raise in timely PCRA petition (claims preserved without prejudice) |
| Brady / undisclosed video evidence | Commonwealth’s disclosure did not produce a non-frivolous Brady claim on record | Morales contends DA withheld video until trial or failed to disclose it | Court: Morales’ pro se pleadings lack record citations; no non-frivolous Brady claim found on direct appeal; denied without prejudice to PCRA review |
| Trial court errors (jury saw defendant in handcuffs; no translator; jury instruction on joint guilt) | Jury credibility and trial rulings supported record; no preserved, non-frivolous issues presented | Morales alleges due process violation from handcuffs exposure, lack of translator, and erroneous instruction forcing joint guilt for bodily injury | Court: Claims were not preserved in Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) and lack adequate record citation; no reversible error on independent review; denied (issues may be addressed via PCRA when appropriate) |
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) (requirements for Anders brief content in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 951 A.2d 379 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate court must independently evaluate frivolousness)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement requirement to preserve issues)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Anders review may consider issues otherwise waived)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 114 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (ineffective assistance claims generally more appropriate for PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (same point on PCRA suitability)
- Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009) (procedural Anders withdrawal requirements summarized)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (upon Anders withdrawal, appellant may retain new counsel or proceed pro se)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)