Opinion ID: 2060168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: withdrawal of pcha counsel

Text: Here, counsel has submitted a purported Anders brief which is so parsimonious with details that this Court was left without any real guidance as to the facts of the case, the relevant procedural history, or the issues which appellant sought to have reviewed. The purported Anders brief plainly fails to meet even the relaxed Turner/Finley no merit letter requirements in this respect. Because of the generic, telegraphic nature of the  Anders Brief submitted, we were obliged to expend a considerable portion of our limited judicial resources duplicating the undocumented review of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Turner, supra, 544 A.2d at 928; Commonwealth v. Finley, supra, 550 A.2d at 215; cf. Penson v. Ohio, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). [5] However, though the Anders brief submitted complies with neither the standards previously set forth in Commonwealth v. Green, 355 Pa.Super. 451, 513 A.2d 1008 (1986), nor those subsequently announced in Turner and Finley, we see no valid substantive or administrative justification to further delay disposition of this frivolous appeal. The only issue upon which appellant has sought review, via his prior pro se submissions, is whether alleged coercion by his court-appointed attorney rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Review of the comprehensive plea colloquy reveals that appellant's current allegation of coercion is contradicted by appellant's own sworn statement at the time the plea was entered that his plea was not induced by any coercion. (N.T. 11/21/84 at 6). It has been uniformly held that such claims will not be entertained, as an appellant will not be permitted to contradict his own prior sworn statements at a guilty plea hearing. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Carrillo, 319 Pa.Super. 115, 124-25, 465 A.2d 1256, 1261 (1983). Given the settled ruling in Carrillo, we have no reluctance to affirm the order denying post-conviction relief on substantive grounds. Our careful and time-consuming review of the record reveals that the evidence against appellant was irrefutable, the guilty plea colloquy was impeccable, and the sentence of imprisonment imposed was manifestly appropriate. Trial counsel, the trial court, PCHA counsel, the PCHA court, and appellate counsel all reached the same conclusion. [6] Thus, no substantive interest was jeopardized by counsel's non-compliance with the documentation dictates of Turner and Finley. Though administrative interests were clearly prejudiced by counsel's non-compliance with the minimum documentation requisites of Turner and Finley, we find no reason to delay disposition of this frivolous appeal on that basis. The judicial resources needlessly expended as the result of appellate counsel's failure to document his review of the record will not be recouped by prolonging the odyssey of this case through the courts of this Commonwealth. Remand for a new No Merit Letter would elevate form over both substantive and administrative interests and in accordance with the general policy propounded by our Supreme Court in Pa.R.A.P. 105 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 2 & 150  we decline to do so. [7]