Commonwealth v. Flowers
113 A.3d 1246
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Darnell Flowers pled guilty to three counts of retail theft arising from three incidents (Sept 2011–May 2012) and was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 23–46 months plus four years probation.
- Flowers filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging the sentence as excessive; the trial court denied relief.
- Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders/McClendon brief and a petition to withdraw, identifying only a discretionary-sentencing claim as arguably meritorious and notifying Flowers of his rights.
- The appellate record lacked the transcript of the guilty-plea proceedings; only the sentencing transcript was in the certified record. Flowers had requested transcripts.
- The Superior Court found counsel complied with Anders’s technical requirements but held counsel could not have completed the mandated full-record review because the plea transcript was missing; the court denied counsel’s withdrawal and remanded for counsel to obtain the missing transcript and file either an advocate’s brief or a renewed Anders filing after reviewing the complete record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Flowers) Argument | Defendant's (Counsel/Commonwealth) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders obligations | Counsel’s Anders brief identified the sentencing claim; Flowers urged review of his sentencing claim | Counsel asserted he examined the record and found the appeal wholly frivolous and moved to withdraw under Anders | Court: Counsel met Anders’s technical filing duties but could not satisfy Anders’s substantive duty because the certified record omitted the guilty-plea transcript; withdrawal denied and case remanded for counsel to review the complete record and refile |
| Extent of appellate court’s independent review under Anders | Flowers (and majority) urged full-record review to ensure no non-frivolous issues were overlooked | Counsel/Commonwealth implicitly relied on adequacy of Anders brief focusing on identified issue | Court (Majority): Reviewing court must independently review the entire record for any non-frivolous issues, not just issues raised in the Anders brief; remand required to complete that process |
| Whether the sentencing claim (consecutive sentences) raises a substantial question | Flowers argued consecutive sentences produced an unduly harsh aggregate sentence and that mitigating factors were inadequately considered | Commonwealth/trial court argued the court considered PSI and mitigating factors and permissibly imposed consecutive sentences based on extensive prior record | Dissent (would have held): After review of sentencing transcript, sentencing was not an abuse of discretion; the sentencing claim is frivolous. Majority did not decide merits because record incomplete |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes counsel’s duties when seeking to withdraw on appeal and requires reviewing court to examine proceedings)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (details Anders/McClendon brief content requirements in Pennsylvania)
- McClendon v. Commonwealth, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (adopts Anders and emphasizes the reviewing court’s independent examination of the record)
- Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (Super. Ct. precedent endorsing independent review for arguable issues)
- Vilsaint v. Commonwealth, 893 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting counsel cannot fulfill Anders duties without review of the entire record)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discusses when consecutive sentences may raise a substantial question)
- Disalvo v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sets four-part test for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentencing)