Commonwealth v. Orellana
86 A.3d 877
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Orellana was charged with DUI general impairment (second offense), disregarding traffic lanes, careless driving, and speeding on Sept. 10, 2012.
- Convicted on Jan. 30, 2013 for DUI general impairment (first‑degree misdemeanor) and for the two related offenses; sentenced April 23, 2013 to 90 days to 12 months’ confinement, with an 18‑month license suspension and fines.
- Notice of appeal filed May 14, 2013; Rule 1925(b) statement filed June 6, 2013; Rule 1925(a) opinion issued June 27, 2013.
- On remand, counsel submitted an Anders/Santiago brief; the court remanded for proper compliance with Anders/Santiago; Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss was denied.
- Appointed counsel on remand filed another Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw; court found counsel failed to show wholly frivolous appeal and remanded to file an advocate’s brief addressing a potentially meritorious sentencing issue.
- Court instructed that, unless counsel fully satisfies Anders/Santiago, including a frivolity finding, an advocate’s brief must be filed within 30 days and that the merits would not be reviewed sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago. | Orellana | Orellana | Withdrawal denied; nonfrivolous issue present; advocate’s brief required. |
| Whether there is a potentially meritorious issue regarding sentencing legality. | Orellana | Orellana | Issue acknowledged as potentially meritorious, but not reviewed; advocate’s brief required. |
| Whether the court should independently review sufficiency of the evidence or sentence sua sponte. | Commonwealth | Orellana | Court declined independent review pending proper Anders/Santiago briefing; no merits review at this stage. |
| Whether review of the sentencing issue can proceed without a proper advocate’s brief. | Commonwealth | Orellana | Advocate’s brief required; withdrawal denied until compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (indigent defendant right to counsel on direct appeal; counsel may withdraw only if case is wholly frivolous)
- Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania framework for Anders/Santiago briefing and withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa.Super.2007) (requires resolution of counsel withdrawal questions before merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 (Pa.Super.1997) (reemphasizes zealous representation in Anders framework)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa.1981) (wholly frivolous standard for Anders withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Kearns, 896 A.2d 640 (Pa.Super.2006) (advocate should present best arguments unless clearly frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Gezovich, 7 A.3d 300 (Pa.Super.2010) (notes preservation of sufficiency challenges might not require trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa.Super.2007) (if nonfrivolous issues exist, file advocate’s brief; do not grant withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Musau, 69 A.3d 754 (Pa.Super.2013) (sentencing legality raised; discussed on remand)