In the Interest of: D.D., a Minor
1766 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2016Background
- Juvenile D.D. was adjudicated delinquent for robbery, assault, theft, intimidation and related conspiracy charges after a May 6, 2015 fact-finding hearing.
- The juvenile court entered a dispositional order on June 17, 2015 placing D.D. in a secure residential treatment facility.
- D.D. filed a timely post-disposition motion challenging the weight of the evidence; the motion was denied by operation of law on September 11, 2015, and D.D. appealed.
- Court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw, asserting the appeal is frivolous, and notified D.D. of his rights; D.D. did not file a response.
- The juvenile court credited victim and eyewitness testimony (E.B., S.D., and Officer Hartman corroboration) and discredited testimony favorable to D.D. (D.L.), supporting the delinquency findings.
- The Superior Court conducted an independent review, found the trial court’s credibility and weight determinations supported by the record, affirmed the dispositional order, and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adjudication is against the weight of the evidence | The weight claim: factual inconsistencies render the verdict unreliable | Trial court’s credibility findings were reasonable; evidence and corroboration support adjudication | Court found no abuse of discretion in weighing evidence; claim frivolous and denied |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders/Santiago | N/A (appellant did not oppose withdrawal) | Counsel argued appeal is frivolous and followed Anders/Santiago procedure | Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders/Santiago, permitted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to withdraw only after filing brief showing appeal is frivolous and notifying client)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (specifies Anders requirements for Pennsylvania counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review of weight claims limited to abuse of discretion by trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (weight claims premised on witness credibility are generally not cognizable on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. 2007) (describes scope of appellate review for weight-of-the-evidence claims)