Com. v. Odom, D., Com. v. Odom, D. No. 3200 EDA 2016

Daniel Odom entered negotiated guilty and nolo contendere pleas on three dockets to theft-from-a-motor-vehicle, two counts of theft by unlawful taking, and three counts of criminal conspiracy.
Plea agreement provided an aggregate sentence of 21 to 42 months’ imprisonment plus two years’ probation; the trial court also credited time served.
No post-sentence motions were filed; Odom timely appealed to the Superior Court.
Odom’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and application to withdraw, stating the sole issue: whether the aggregate sentence was harsh and excessive.
The Superior Court examined counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, conducted an independent review of the record, and concluded the appeal was frivolous because the negotiated plea precluded a discretionary challenge to the agreed sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Odom’s 21–42 month aggregate sentence was harsh and excessive	Commonwealth: enforcement of negotiated plea and sentence; no merit to challenge	Odom: sentence was harsh and excessive under the circumstances	Court: appeal frivolous; plea agreement bars challenge to agreed-upon sentence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal when arguing appeal is frivolous)
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders requirements under Pennsylvania law)
Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (addresses counsel’s obligations under Anders/Santiago and independent review requirement)
Brown, 982 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2009) (a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a plea agreement specifying penalties cannot seek discretionary appeal of those agreed penalties)
Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994) (explains that allowing appeals of agreed-upon sentences undermines plea bargaining integrity)