298 A.3d 1152
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Appellant Jack Ronald Stroud pled guilty in March 2022 to one count of flight to avoid apprehension and was sentenced April 21, 2022 to 12–24 months, to run consecutive to other sentences.
- The certified record lacks a plea transcript and contains no post-sentence motion, although the trial court entered an order denying a post-sentence motion and told Stroud he had 30 days to appeal.
- Stroud filed a notice of appeal (received June 10, 2022). The trial court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; none was filed, and the court issued a statement in lieu of opinion urging dismissal for waiver.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago petition and brief seeking withdrawal but did not file the Rule 1925(c)(4) statement of intent to withdraw and failed to ensure the certified record included the plea transcript and post-sentence motion.
- The Superior Court held counsel’s procedural failures and the incomplete record prevented meaningful Anders review and denied the petition to withdraw.
- The Superior Court remanded: counsel must file either a Rule 1925(b) concise statement or Rule 1925(c)(4) statement within 30 days, ensure the plea transcript and post-sentence motion are included in the certified record, and the trial court must issue a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Stroud’s guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | Stroud contends plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered. | Trial court/Commonwealth contend plea was valid. | Not decided on merits — remanded for completion of record and Rule 1925 procedure. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive, excessive sentence? | Stroud argues sentence is harsh/excessive and an abuse of discretion. | Commonwealth argues sentence was lawful and justified (e.g., criminal history). | Not decided on merits — remanded for further proceedings. |
| Did the trial court fail to state sufficient reasons for imposing an aggravated-range sentence? | Stroud argues the court relied only on criminal history and gave insufficient reasons. | Commonwealth/trial court contend sentencing rationale was adequate. | Not decided on merits — remanded for proper appellate development. |
| Did the court err by imposing a $500 fine under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9726 without determining ability to pay? | Stroud argues ability-to-pay was not determined. | Commonwealth argues fine was authorized. | Not decided on merits — remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state requirements for Anders-style brief)
- Commonwealth v. McBride, 957 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement and consequences)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court-process breakdown can excuse untimely appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 193 A.3d 957 (Pa. Super. 2018) (deficient Rule 1925(b) order may excuse waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (remedies when counsel fails to file Rule 1925(b) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 175 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2017) (requirements for Anders petition and brief)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (need for complete certified record for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (documents appended to briefs not part of certified record)