Com. v. Myers, C., 846 EDA 2021

On Sept. 25, 2016, Christopher Myers assaulted Melvin Williams, stole his iPhone and $90, and caused serious facial and head injuries requiring surgery.
Myers admitted involvement to police and was charged with multiple offenses; a jury convicted him of robbery (threat of immediate serious injury), simple assault, and theft on Sept. 21, 2017.
Initial sentence (Jan. 3, 2018) included 5–10 years for robbery; post-conviction proceedings led to reinstatement of direct appeal rights and this Court previously affirmed convictions but remanded to merge the theft count and for resentencing.
On April 8, 2021, the trial court resentenced Myers to 5–10 years’ incarceration (robbery) followed by 2 years’ probation; Myers timely appealed.
Appellate counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous; Myers did not file a pro se response or retain new counsel.
The Superior Court conducted the required Anders/Santiago review, found counsel complied with Anders, determined Myers’ sentencing challenge did not present a substantial question (and was frivolous on the merits), granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and may withdraw	Counsel contends he made a conscientious review, filed an Anders brief identifying arguable issues, and notified Myers of rights	Commonwealth/trial court position: counsel complied with Anders requirements; no opposition noted	Court: counsel complied with Anders/Santiago; granted petition to withdraw and conducted independent review
Whether Myers’ 5–10 year sentence was unduly harsh / whether it raises a substantial question for review	Myers argued the court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (childhood abuse, mental health, rehabilitation, remorse) and requested a lesser sentence	Trial court/Commonwealth argued PSI and sentencing record show the court considered mitigating factors, the sentence deviated modestly below guideline minimum but was within discretion given offense severity and prior record	Court: claim did not raise a substantial question; even on the merits the sentence was not an abuse of discretion—sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel seeking withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (content requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2014) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 17 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2011) (when claims about inadequate consideration of mitigating factors may present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that a court informed by a PSI considered appropriate sentencing factors)
Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate court’s duty to conduct an independent review of the record after an Anders submission)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discretionary aspects of sentencing are not reviewable as of right)