Commonwealth v. Santiago

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the requirements governing court-appointed appellate counsel’s withdrawal under Anders v. California and Commonwealth v. McClendon. The court held that, prospectively, an Anders brief must state the reasons supporting counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, while also identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying withdrawal and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. An Anders brief is inadequate if counsel merely identifies issues suggested by the defendant and supporting trial testimony without independently referring to anything in the record that counsel found might arguably support the appeal, or stating that no such references exist.
2. For briefing notices issued after the filing of Santiago, an Anders brief accompanying appointed appellate counsel's petition to withdraw must summarize the procedural history and facts with record citations, refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal, state counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, and explain the reasons for that conclusion using relevant facts, controlling case law, and statutes.
3. Anders and McClendon do not require counsel to develop a merits argument, including a scope and standard of review or supporting legal analysis, for issues counsel believes are wholly frivolous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appointed appellate counsel's Anders brief complied with the requirements established by Anders v. California and Commonwealth v. McClendon.
2. Whether Pennsylvania should require an Anders brief to explain counsel's reasons for concluding that the client's appeal is wholly frivolous.
3. Whether the Superior Court properly denied counsel's petition to withdraw.

Disposition

affirmed