Com. v. Poland, J.
3680 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- Poland purchased items at Wal‑Mart, then returned and took the same items without paying; police found the stolen goods after a traffic stop and charged him with retail theft.
- Poland waived a preliminary hearing, failed to appear for a scheduled plea review (bench warrant issued, later rescinded), and ultimately pled guilty on October 8, 2015.
- The trial court sentenced Poland to 9–60 months’ imprisonment (RRRI minimum noted), ordered $300 fine, $282.93 restitution, and DNA collection.
- Poland filed a timely Motion to Reconsider Sentence (denied) and appealed; his appellate counsel, Zimmerman, filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
- Zimmerman identified two arguable issues: (1) validity of the guilty plea and (2) whether the sentence was excessive; Poland filed no pro se brief.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders, independently examined the record, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed the sentence, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Poland's Argument | Zimmerman's/ Commonwealth's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea — was plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered? | Poland contended plea was invalid. | Trial court record (written colloquy) and sentencing posture supported plea validity; no post‑sentence plea withdrawal motion or timely objection. | Waived for appellate review; plea deemed valid. |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence — was sentence excessive/abuse of discretion? | Poland argued sentence was excessive. | Trial court considered PSI, guidelines, defendant’s history and remorse; sentence within discretion. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed. |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders — did appellate counsel comply with Anders/Santiago requirements? | Poland implied need for review of issues. | Zimmerman certified a conscientious review, filed an Anders brief summarizing facts, issues, and reasons for frivolity, and notified Poland of rights. | Anders compliance satisfied; counsel permitted to withdraw. |
| Sufficiency of record for plea colloquy — missing oral transcript; does that undermine plea? | Poland suggested missing oral colloquy could affect voluntariness. | Record contained a written plea colloquy; court contacted trial court and no transcript existed; defendant did not preserve challenge. | Lack of oral transcript noted but claim waived; no relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (elements required in a proper Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (waiver rule for failing to object to plea during colloquy or via timely post‑sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (four‑part test before addressing discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing decisions)