Com. v. Thompson, J., 870 EDA 2016

At ~12:31 a.m. on May 9, 2015, police found a silver Honda parked with Appellant Jermaine Thompson and another occupant; officer smelled burnt marijuana when window opened and observed smoke.
Officer asked Thompson to exit, asked about drugs/weapons; Thompson admitted and officer found a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle.
Thompson was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana and on February 22, 2016 entered a negotiated guilty plea; court imposed a $200 fine plus costs per the plea agreement.
Counsel filed a timely appeal and sought leave to withdraw under Anders/Santiago, asserting no non‑frivolous issues; the sole arguable issue raised was whether the court should have inquired about Thompson’s ARD eligibility during the plea colloquy.
The trial court concluded the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Thompson did not object at plea or file a timely motion to withdraw the plea.
The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and Cartrette, conducted an independent review under Flowers, found the ARD-related plea challenge frivolous (and waived), granted counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should have explored Appellant’s eligibility for ARD during the guilty plea colloquy, affecting voluntariness	Prosecution: plea was properly accepted; record shows plea knowing and voluntary	Thompson: plea may not have been knowing/voluntary because court did not explore ARD availability after appellant expressed confusion about missed notices	Court: Issue waived (no contemporaneous objection or motion to withdraw); plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; challenge frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for attorney withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state-specific requirements for Anders brief content)
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements to withdraw under Anders)
Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for determining knowing, voluntary, intelligent guilty plea)
Commonwealth v. Prendes, 97 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant bears burden to prove plea invalid)
Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to object at colloquy or timely move to withdraw plea waives challenge)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirement for appellate court independent review when counsel seeks to withdraw)