Com. v. Woodall, J.
395 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- In 2006 police used a confidential informant (Bauer) and recorded calls to arrange multiple cocaine transactions with Jason Woodall; officers arrested Woodall on June 7, 2006 after finding a large amount of cocaine on him.
- Woodall was charged in two informations for events on May 31/June 1 and June 7, 2006 (multiple counts including delivery and possession with intent to deliver). The informations were consolidated for trial.
- March 2009 jury convicted Woodall for the June 7 events; sentencing produced an aggregate 7–14 year term. A retrial in April 2011 produced convictions for the May 31/June 1 events; concurrent 7–14 year sentence was imposed.
- Woodall obtained PCRA relief in 2013 restoring direct-appeal rights; this Court affirmed in 2015. Subsequent PCRA proceedings led the trial court, on February 1, 2016, to vacate prior judgments and resentence Woodall to an aggregate 42–84 month term.
- Woodall appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief and moved to withdraw, raising one issue: whether the trial court erred by imposing a state sentence while indicating Woodall would be immediately paroled when that did not occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders/McClendon procedural requirements to withdraw | Woodall (implicitly) opposed ineffective or deficient appellate advocacy | Counsel argued he conducted a conscientious review, filed an Anders brief, informed client of rights, and moved to withdraw | Court held counsel complied with procedural Anders/McClendon requirements and granted withdrawal |
| Whether the discretionary aspects of Woodall's sentence were erroneous (court would immediately parole him but did not) | Woodall argued sentencing discretion abused because court promised immediate parole that was not effectuated | Commonwealth contended the issue was not preserved and thus waived; sentencing discretion is subject to appellate review only if procedural requirements met | Court held the claim was waived (not preserved at sentencing or in timely post-sentence motion), thus frivolous; independent review found no other non-frivolous issues; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for counsel withdrawal when appeal frivolous)
- McClendon v. Commonwealth, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Pennsylvania precursor applying Anders principles)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders/McClendon briefs and independent review)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four-part test to reach merits of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285 (Pa. Super. 2008) (waived issues are frivolous for Anders purposes)