Com. v. Griffith, D.
This text of Com. v. Griffith, D. (Com. v. Griffith, D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S62033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
DAVID LYNN GRIFFITH
Appellant No. 1406 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered July 16, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000080-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016
Appellant, David Lynn Griffith, appeals from the order entered in the
Bradford County Court of Common Pleas, revoking his parole. As a prefatory
matter, we observe counsel has designated and filed Appellant’s brief on
appeal as an Anders1 brief. Pursuant to Anders and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349 (2009), when counsel determines that
after a conscientious review of the record, there are no non-frivolous issues
for review, counsel must: 1) petition the Court for leave to withdraw,
certifying that after a thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded
the issues to be raised are wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to ____________________________________________
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981). J-S62033-16
anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; and 3)
furnish a copy of the brief to the appellant and advise him of his right to
obtain new counsel or file a pro se brief to raise any additional
points the appellant deems worthy of review. Santiago, supra at
173-79, 978 A.2d at 358-61.
Instantly, counsel failed to attach to his petition to withdraw a copy of
the letter that counsel alleges he sent to Appellant, advising him of his right
to proceed pro se or with newly retained counsel. See id. See also
Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa.Super. 2005) (holding
counsel must attach as exhibit to petition to withdraw filed with this Court,
copy of letter sent to client advising of client’s rights). On May 3, 2016, this
Court issued a per curiam order directing counsel to notify Appellant with a
proper statement advising Appellant of his rights and to file a copy of the
notification with this Court within ten days. Based on counsel’s failure to
comply, this Court issued a second per curiam order on May 20, 2016, again
directing counsel to notify Appellant of his rights and to file a copy of the
notification with this Court within ten days.
To date, counsel still has not filed a copy of the notice letter he
purports to have sent to Appellant or otherwise complied with this Court’s
per curiam orders. Accordingly, we now order counsel to file with this Court
within ten (10) days of the filing date of this order, a copy of the notification
letter counsel claims he sent to Appellant. Panel jurisdiction is retained.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Griffith, D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-griffith-d-pasuperct-2016.