Opinion ID: 2060168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the voluntariness of the guilty plea.

Text: The Turner no merit letter is not to be construed as the functional equivalent of an  Anders Brief. So, while counsel's statement of the issues which could arguably support appellant's appeal might not survive the Anders test, it does, nevertheless, and in my view, fully comply with Turner. In collateral proceedings where counsel seeks to withdraw, Anders is no longer the law to be followed in Pennsylvania. Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court decided in Pennsylvania v. Finley , [481] U.S. [551] 107 S.Ct. 1990 [95 L.Ed.2d 539] [1988] that the federal constitutional considerations underlying the tortuous procedures of Anders do not apply under the PCHA, we deem these less rigid requirements for withdrawal of counsel to satisfy Pennsylvania law in collateral attacks on criminal convictions. Turner, 518 Pa. at 495, 544 A.2d at 929. Thus, any withdrawal of counsel matters in collateral proceedings must now be judged in terms of what is required under Turner and Finley without any further reference to Anders. [1] Nonetheless, the majority seeks to fault counsel for failing to adequately detail counsel's review of the record in addition to failing entirely to list the issues which appellant wished to be reviewed as discussed, supra. Majority Op., 212. Additionally, the majority notes the absence of a no merit letter  detailing the nature and extent of his review and listing each issue the petitioner wished to have raised. . . . Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. at 494, 544 A.2d at 928; emphasis in text. Instantly, the  Anders Brief filed on behalf of appellant, by any other name, fully comports, in my view, with the current state of the law for the withdrawal of court-appointed PCHA counsel. More specifically, I would hold that the Brief filed on behalf of appellant, regardless of the label one chooses to affix to it, possesses all the criteria minimally necessary to meet the relaxed Turner/Finley standard for withdrawal of counsel in collateral appeals. Majority Op. 213. In light of the foregoing, I concur in the result.