Commonwealth v. Morrison, 173 A.3d 286

Morrison, while on parole, committed multiple burglaries/attempted burglaries across Cumberland County in Jan–Feb 2016 and confessed. He faced numerous felony counts at two dockets.
On July 7, 2016, Morrison entered negotiated guilty pleas resolving charges; the plea included an agreed aggregate sentence of 3 to 10 years and restitution.
The trial court accepted the negotiated plea and, on September 27, 2016, imposed the agreed sentence (concurrent across the dockets, consecutive to any parole violation). No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed.
Morrison filed a pro se PCRA petition; counsel later amended to seek reinstatement of a direct appeal nunc pro tunc, alleging plea counsel ineffectiveness for failing to file a requested appeal. The PCRA court granted relief and reinstated appellate rights; Morrison appealed to the Superior Court.
On appeal Morrison raised (1) a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing challenge to the aggregate 3–10 year sentence and (2) that the sentence was illegal because the maximum was more than three times the minimum.
The Superior Court affirmed: the discretionary challenge was waived by the negotiated plea; the legality claim lacked merit and counsel erred procedurally by labeling it frivolous without following Anders/Santiago withdrawal procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion imposing aggregate 3–10 year sentence	Morrison argued the sentence was excessive/unreasonable	Commonwealth and court: sentence was negotiated and acceptable	Waived — negotiated plea bars discretionary-aspects challenge; Reichle governs
Whether sentence was illegal because max > three times min	Morrison (directed counsel) argued sentence length ratio made it illegal	Counsel concluded the claim was wholly frivolous and raised it improperly	Meritless — statute allows the imposed min/max; counsel should have used Anders/Santiago procedure before presenting a frivolous claim

Commonwealth v. Reichle, 589 A.2d 1140 (Pa. Super. 1991) (negotiated plea waives discretionary-aspects challenges)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appointed counsel who deems appeal frivolous)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (indigent defendant’s right to counsel but counsel must not advance frivolous arguments)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (applying Anders framework in Pennsylvania)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (counsel not required to advance every client-requested issue)
United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 2012) (criticizing briefs that mix frivolous and nonfrivolous issues; counsel should withdraw if appeal is wholly frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993) (represented appellant may not file hybrid pro se briefs; options for raising additional claims)