Com. v. Naylor, R.
2964 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- On June 4, 2015, plainclothes Chester City officers (including Officer Carey, Chief Nolan, and Officer Barag) encountered and pursued Richard Brandon Naylor down Bickley Street into a narrow alley after a brief street contact.
- During the chase, officers observed Naylor pull a semi-automatic handgun, and Chief Nolan heard/observed muzzle flash and felt the discharge; Officer Carey returned fire after seeing a muzzle flash and perceiving a threat. Naylor escaped over a fence; a short time later police recovered a silver Taurus semi-automatic handgun near the fence.
- A detective testified the recovered gun was operable and matched a cartridge recovered at the scene; Naylor lacked a carry license and was statutorily prohibited from possessing firearms due to prior convictions.
- Eyewitness identification evidence: the three pursuing officers each gave unequivocal in-court identifications of Naylor as the shooter; a civilian (Jorge Rivera) made a prompt out-of-court photo-array identification but did not identify Naylor in-court.
- A jury convicted Naylor of persons not to possess firearms, aggravated assault (attempt by physical menace as to Officer Carey), and firearms not to be carried without a license; he was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive terms.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago and whether any nonfrivolous issues existed (principally a sufficiency challenge based on Rivera’s lack of in-court ID).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Naylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence given Rivera’s failure to make an in-court identification | Out‑of‑court photo-array ID plus unequivocal in-court IDs from three officers, physical evidence (gun and cartridge match), and circumstances suffice to prove identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Rivera’s inability to identify Naylor in-court undermines the Commonwealth’s proof of identity and therefore sufficiency of the evidence | Court held the sufficiency challenge frivolous: out‑of‑court ID, officers’ unequivocal identifications, and forensic evidence sustain convictions |
| Adequacy of counsel’s Anders/Santiago compliance and request to withdraw | Appellate counsel complied with Anders/Santiago by summarizing facts, citing record support, identifying arguable issues, and concluding appeal frivolous | Naylor did not file any response to counsel’s withdrawal petition | Court found counsel substantially complied, conducted independent review, concluded the appeal was wholly frivolous, granted withdrawal, and affirmed judgment of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders obligations in Pennsylvania and content of appellate brief accompanying withdrawal petition)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reviewing court must independently examine record when counsel seeks withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (factors for evaluating reliability of identification evidence)