Com. v. Santiago, J., 93 EDA 2024

Jesus Manuel Santiago was convicted of theft by unlawful taking after an incident involving the theft of a vehicle in a Wawa parking lot on October 3, 2021.
The victim, Veree Hilton, identified Santiago as the perpetrator both at the scene and in court.
Evidence at trial included eyewitness testimony, DNA analysis matching Santiago, surveillance footage from the scene, and documentation from a nearby rehab facility, Pyramid Health, confirming his discharge the day of the incident.
Defense argued misidentification, suggesting Santiago’s brother committed the crime using Santiago’s identity; Santiago himself had an extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for false ID and similar offenses.
The Commonwealth withdrew lesser accompanying charges at trial; Santiago proceeded to a non-jury trial and was sentenced to 27 to 84 months’ imprisonment.
Santiago’s counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal, arguing the appeal was frivolous; Santiago filed a pro se response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Hearsay Testimony	Testimony regarding out-of-court statements was inadmissible hearsay.	Statements were admissions by a party-opponent and thus exceptions to hearsay.	Properly admitted as party admission; no abuse of discretion.
Admission of Evidence Obtained via Potential HIPAA Violation	Evidence from Pyramid Health should have been excluded as obtained in violation of HIPAA.	HIPAA only provides penalties against covered entities, not evidentiary exclusion; no private action under HIPAA.	HIPAA violations do not require exclusion of evidence; issue meritless.
Sufficiency of Evidence	Evidence insufficient to identify Santiago as perpetrator.	Sufficient direct/circumstantial evidence (identifications, DNA, video) proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.
Pro se Claims (general challenge to conviction/investigation)	Challenged officer accounts and denied guilt.	No new legal arguments or authorities presented.	Claims waived for lack of adequate argument/citation.

Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders procedure in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (reiterates Anders requirements in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Bennet, 124 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedure when Anders brief and pro se response are filed)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for admissibility and review of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2014) (weight and sufficiency of evidence and finder of fact’s discretion)
Commonwealth v. Smyser, 195 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2018) (proof of identity by circumstantial evidence sufficient)
Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2011) (identification issues generally pertain to weight, not sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298 (Pa. Super. 2017) (HIPAA does not create evidentiary privilege)
Commonwealth v. Kresge, 240 A.3d 905 (Pa. Super. 2020) (HIPAA does not provide basis for suppression of evidence)