Com. v. Yeiser, S.
Com. v. Yeiser, S. No. 712 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Siam Shabazz Yeiser pled guilty to possession of contraband by an inmate (18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a.2)) and was sentenced April 4, 2016 in Clearfield County.
- The certified record contains a written guilty plea colloquy signed Feb. 27, 2016, but no transcript of an on-the-record oral colloquy before the trial court.
- At sentencing the parties and court acknowledged Yeiser had entered a plea at some earlier, unspecified time, but the record does not show when or whether an oral plea colloquy occurred.
- Yeiser raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement that his plea agreement was void because he did not receive both a written and verbal colloquy.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court found the Anders technical requirements met but identified a non-frivolous issue and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, directing filing of an advocate’s brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yeiser) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)(2) required an on-the-record oral inquiry when a guilty plea is entered pursuant to a plea agreement | Yeiser: plea was void because he did not receive an oral colloquy in addition to the written colloquy | Commonwealth: written colloquy satisfied Rule 590 and no rule requires a separate oral colloquy at sentencing | Non-frivolous — Superior Court concluded the plain language of Rule 590(B)(2) appears to require an on-the-record inquiry for plea agreements and ordered further briefing |
| Whether counsel could withdraw under Anders after filing an Anders brief | Yeiser (implicit): entitled to advocate review of a non-frivolous plea claim | Counsel: appeal frivolous; complied with Anders/Santiago technical requirements | Anders technical requirements met, but withdrawal denied because a non-frivolous issue exists; counsel ordered to file an advocate’s brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Anders appeal procedural sequencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (Anders withdrawal procedural elements)
- Commonwealth v. Porreca, 595 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1991) (trial court must inquire on record about issues in written colloquy; Santobello safeguards discussed)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (protections relating to plea agreements and fairness)