Com. v. Parker, M.
589 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Michael Parker was convicted after a bench trial of burglary, criminal attempt—PWID, resisting arrest, flight to avoid apprehension, and reckless driving; initial aggregate sentence was 5–10 years with concurrent terms.
- On direct appeal, this Court rejected Parker’s substantive challenges but remanded for resentencing because the flight conviction merged with burglary for sentencing purposes.
- The trial court resentenced Parker on March 10, 2016; Parker appealed the resentencing.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw; Parker filed a pro se request for new counsel and a handwritten response.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements, whether Parker could raise a sufficiency claim on the resentencing appeal, and whether substitute counsel should be appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant Parker) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insufficient evidence claim may be raised on appeal from resentencing | Parker contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions | Commonwealth argued Parker waived any sufficiency challenge by not raising it in his earlier direct appeal | Waived — sufficiency claim was not preserved in the first appeal and cannot be raised on the limited remand for resentencing |
| Whether substitute appellate counsel must be appointed after counsel filed an Anders brief and sought to withdraw | Parker requested new counsel, asserting counsel’s Anders filing was inadequate | Commonwealth argued counsel satisfied Anders/Santiago obligations and withdrawal is appropriate; no right to counsel of choice | Denied — court found counsel complied with Anders/Santiago, appellate review confirmed appeal frivolous, so no substitute counsel required |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (appointed counsel must advise client when seeking to withdraw on frivolous appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements for Pennsylvania counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court must independently review the record after Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. 2014) (counsel must provide client with rights and options when filing Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (when court agrees appeal is frivolous, counsel has discharged duty and need not continue appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 144 A.3d 1270 (Pa. 2016) (limitations on issues properly before the court on remand for resentencing)