Com. v. Whalley, M.
153 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- A final PFA order was entered against Michael Whalley on December 29, 2015, prohibiting any direct or indirect contact with the protected person for three years.
- While incarcerated at SCI Waymart, Whalley sent multiple letters (ranging up to 30 pages) to the protected person between March and April 2016; letters used his inmate return address and contained personal, threatening, and romantic language.
- Whalley was charged with multiple counts of Indirect Criminal Contempt (ICC) for violating the PFA; he pled guilty to two earlier violations and contested violations 3–6 at an ICC hearing held June 2, 2016.
- At the ICC hearing the court admitted the letters, found the protected person competent to identify Whalley’s handwriting and address, and discredited Whalley’s denials that he authored the letters.
- The trial court found Whalley guilty of violations 3–6 and imposed consecutive six-month terms (aggregate 18 months incarceration followed by six months probation) and extended the PFA.
- On appeal counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and a petition to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and independently reviewed the record and affirmed the judgment, granting counsel’s withdrawal and denying Whalley’s request for substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved ICC violations (intentional contact with protected person) | Commonwealth: letters were directly addressed to protected person, bore Whalley’s inmate return address and handwriting, contained personal/threatening content supporting volitional and wrongful intent | Whalley: denied writing the letters, argued signatures/addresses didn’t match his mailing records and some correspondence was to third parties not covered by PFA | Court: evidence sufficed on all ICC elements (definite order, notice, volitional act, wrongful intent); credibility finding against Whalley upheld; convictions affirmed |
| Whether violation #6 charged correspondence was to a non-protected third party (thus outside PFA) | Commonwealth: violation #6 was a 30-page letter addressed to the protected person admitted as Exhibit 6; charged as direct correspondence to the protected person | Whalley: contended that the charged writings were directed to another individual not protected by the PFA | Court: rejected Whalley’s contention; record and exhibits showed letter was directed to protected person and supported ICC #6 conviction |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | Commonwealth (responding via counsel): counsel performed record review, filed Anders brief, notified client of rights and enclosed brief | Whalley: sought appointment of substitute counsel and IFP status, asserting counsel conflict and desire for different representation | Court: found procedural and substantive Anders/Santiago requirements met; allowed counsel to withdraw and denied appointment of substitute counsel |
| Whether Whalley is entitled to appointed substitute appellate counsel after Anders withdrawal | Whalley: requested IFP status and new counsel | Commonwealth/Court: once court agrees appeal is wholly frivolous, counsel has discharged duties and defendant is not entitled to substitute appellate counsel | Court: denied Whalley’s request for substitute counsel and IFP appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state-specific requirements for Anders-style withdrawal briefs)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of indirect criminal contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 766 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2001) (standard of review for contempt findings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court’s independent review of Anders claims to decide frivolity)