Commonwealth v. Tejada, 176 A.3d 355

Ricky Tejada, incarcerated at SCI Albion, was charged with two counts of aggravated harassment by a prisoner for throwing urine at corrections officers on two occasions and was convicted after a jury trial held in absentia.
Tejada elected to represent himself at the January 11, 2016 trial; the court conducted a waiver colloquy and accepted his waiver of counsel earlier that day.
On the morning of trial Tejada asked for a continuance and complained discovery was not received; the court relied on the Commonwealth’s representation that discovery had been sent and denied the continuance.
Tejada repeatedly engaged in disruptive and jurisdictional/delusional-sounding objections, requested reinstatement of counsel and a competency exam; the court found no incompetency, warned him, and ultimately removed him from the courtroom for continued outbursts.
The trial proceeded with voir dire and the presentation of the Commonwealth’s case with no one defending Tejada; he was convicted and sentenced to 4–8 years. He timely appealed and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Tejada)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying competency exam	Court properly assessed behavior and found no competency concerns; request was dilatory	Tejada argued he was incompetent and entitled to a competency evaluation	Court found claim frivolous as tactic to delay; no abuse of discretion
Whether court erred by removing defendant and proceeding to trial in absentia without appointing counsel	Removal was warranted by misconduct and trial could proceed	Tejada argued removal and proceeding without any representation violated Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and to be present	Court held this claim is non-frivolous; Anders withdrawal denied and appellate counsel ordered to file merits brief on this issue
Whether sentence is manifestly excessive	Commonwealth defends sentence as within guideline discretion	Tejada argued sentence excessive and inconsistent with Sentencing Code	Court found issue not preserved and frivolous (no sentence-reconsideration request)

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel's withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (substantive requirements for an Anders/Santiago brief)
Commonwealth v. Blauser, 166 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2017) (procedural rule on resolving Anders withdrawal before merits review)
State v. Menefee, 341 P.3d 229 (Or. App. 2014) (trial court must protect defendant’s right to representation if removed for misconduct)
State v. Lacey, 385 P.3d 1151 (Or. App. 2016) (applying Menefee to hold trial may not proceed without securing waiver of right to counsel or appointing counsel)
United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2004) (framework distinguishing forfeiture of right to be present/self-representation from right to representation)