Com. v. Smith, J., 490 MDA 2017

Jeremiah Smith pleaded guilty on December 16, 2016 to two counts of robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of carrying a firearm without a license.
On March 8, 2017 the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 96 to 240 months’ imprisonment (standard-range sentences).
Smith was advised of post‑sentence rights but did not file a post‑sentence motion to preserve a challenge to sentencing.
Smith timely filed a direct appeal; appellate counsel (Kelly) filed an Anders brief and a letter complying with Santiago/Nischan technical requirements and sought permission to withdraw.
The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found the discretionary‑sentencing claim waived and frivolous, found no other non‑frivolous issues, affirmed the judgment of sentence, and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing (challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence)	Smith asserts the sentence was an abuse of discretion	Commonwealth/Trial court contends the claim is waived for failure to file a post‑sentence motion and the sentence was within the standard range	Waived for failure to preserve; appellate claim frivolous; judgment of sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on direct appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania’s requirements for Anders brief content)
Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural steps when counsel files an Anders brief)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court’s independent review after Anders/Santiago compliance)
Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four‑part test for discretionary‑sentencing appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary‑aspect sentencing treated as petition for permission to appeal)