Com. v. Wunder, K., 623 MDA 2016

Kyle Wunder pled guilty to first‑degree murder, robbery, burglary, and two counts of conspiracy for his role in a 2012 shooting; plea avoided death penalty and court sentenced him to life plus concurrent terms.
Wunder did not file a direct appeal.
He filed a timely pro se PCRA petition alleging trial counsel (Conrad) was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate an alleged offer to reduce homicide grading and (2) failing to file a requested direct appeal.
At the PCRA evidentiary hearing, Conrad testified Wunder did not request an appeal; Wunder gave equivocal testimony that he “talked about” appeals but did not clearly recall requesting one.
The PCRA court credited Conrad and denied relief. This Court initially vacated the denial to require the PCRA court to resolve the credibility issue regarding an appeal request, citing Lantzy and related precedent. On remand the PCRA court again found Conrad credible; this appeal followed.
Appellate counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court conducted an independent review, found no meritorious issues, granted withdrawal, and affirmed.

Issue	Wunder's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal	Wunder contends he asked Conrad to file a direct appeal and was ignored	Commonwealth/PCRA court contended Wunder did not request an appeal; Conrad’s testimony was credible	Court held Wunder failed to prove he requested an appeal; PCRA court’s credibility finding for counsel was supported and denial of relief affirmed
Whether prejudice must be shown by Wunder to obtain relief for failure to appeal	Wunder implied he should show prejudice or merit of appeal issues	Commonwealth argued no request was made so claim fails; if request proved, prejudice is per se	Court reiterated that unjustified failure to file an appeal upon request is prejudice per se, but because request was not established, no relief was warranted
Whether appellate counsel complied with Turner/Finley withdrawal requirements	Wunder implicitly challenged counsel’s procedural posture	Appellate counsel argued she reviewed the record, served a no‑merit letter and brief, and informed Wunder of rights	Court found substantial compliance with Turner/Finley (and accepted Anders‑style filing), permitted withdrawal
Whether any preserved issues of arguable merit exist on appeal	Wunder sought relief on plea grading and appeal issues	Commonwealth maintained no meritorious preserved issues; plea was knowing and voluntary	Court’s independent review found no meritorious preserved issues; affirmed judgment

Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1999) (failure to file requested direct appeal constitutes prejudice per se)
Commonwealth v. Spencer, 892 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 2006) (petitioner must plead and prove timely appeal request and unjustified ignoring of that request)
Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate deference to PCRA court credibility findings on whether an appeal was requested)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel’s withdrawal in PCRA/no‑merit contexts)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for no‑merit submissions and counsel withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing Turner/Finley no‑merit letter content and duties)
Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (recognizing Anders procedure affords greater protection and may be accepted in PCRA withdrawal contexts)
Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1999) (mere allegation is insufficient to prove counsel ignored a request to file an appeal)