Com. v. Richardson, M.
Com. v. Richardson, M. No. 431 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Appellant Mark Richardson pled guilty to third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and robbery in Philadelphia County and was sentenced January 16, 2015.
- Appointed counsel John Belli filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw under Anders v. California and Commonwealth v. Santiago.
- Counsel identified two potential appellate issues: (1) discretionary sentencing claim and (2) voluntariness/adequacy of the guilty-plea colloquy.
- Record shows Richardson did not object at sentencing, nor file a post-sentence motion or motion to withdraw his plea. Plea counsel informed him of the ten-day deadline to file a post-sentence motion.
- Richardson did not respond to counsel’s Anders petition. The Superior Court conducted an independent review and concluded the appeal is frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Richardson contends the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. | Commonwealth argues claim is waived for failure to object or file post-sentence motion. | Waived under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); no relief. |
| Voluntariness of guilty plea / adequacy of colloquy | Richardson claims plea was not knowing/voluntary and court failed to advise of appellate and jury-trial rights. | Commonwealth notes no motion to withdraw plea was filed; defendant was told of post-sentence deadlines by plea counsel. | Waived for failure to seek withdrawal; colloquy challenge meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pa. standards for Anders-type withdrawals)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (requirement to notify client and append letter when moving to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (procedural guidance on appellate review of sentencing issues)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 578 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement practice)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court breakdown doctrine when defendant not informed of appeal deadlines)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffectiveness claims raised on collateral review)