Com. v. Parker, J.
1833 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- In 2013 Parker repeatedly entered his estranged wife’s home (despite being barred), destroyed property, and later sent letters threatening revenge and murder; he was charged with numerous related offenses.
- On January 22, 2015 Parker entered guilty but mentally ill pleas to multiple counts (trespass, criminal mischief, intimidation, terroristic threats, harassment) pursuant to a semi‑negotiated plea; sentencing was not negotiated.
- Parker waived a PSI and received consecutive sentences within guideline ranges, resulting in an aggregate term of 10 1/4 to 30 years’ imprisonment.
- Parker filed a post‑sentence motion and a PCRA petition; the trial court reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and this appeal followed.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous; the Superior Court reviewed the record independently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parker) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker may withdraw his guilty plea based on newly discovered evidence (victim lied, phone calls, overheard conversation) | Newly discovered exculpatory evidence shows innocence and victim fabrication | Evidence was known or should have been known during trial‑court proceedings; claims not raised below and thus waived on direct appeal | Waived on direct appeal; may be raised in a timely PCRA petition |
| Whether trial counsel coerced plea or made false sentencing promises (ineffective assistance) | Counsel coerced Parker and promised a more favorable sentence, inducing plea | IAC claims must be raised collaterally, not on direct appeal | Not addressed on merits; claim is reserved for collateral review under PCRA |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing consecutive sentences and denying modification/home plan | Consecutive sentences produced an excessive aggregate term and denial of home plan was improper | Sentences were within guideline ranges and supported by multiple distinct criminal episodes and ongoing threats | No substantial question raised; discretionary sentencing affirmed |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders and whether appeal is frivolous | Counsel contends no non‑frivolous issues support appeal | Court must review Anders compliance and independently examine record | Anders brief compliant; independent review found appeal wholly frivolous; counsel’s withdrawal granted and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural obligations when counsel withdraws on direct appeal)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for appointed counsel’s withdrawal on frivolous appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (IAC claims typically raised in collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (when consecutive sentences may raise a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (test for substantial question on sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court’s independent review for overlooked non‑frivolous issues)