Court Opinion

ID: 9763257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:39:45.803001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.241214
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
concurring:
¶ 1 I reserve judgment on the Majority’s discussion of the issue of “hybrid representation,” the extent of counsel’s representation mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the process Anders suggests for disposition of merit briefs filed by an appellant on his own behalf. Nevertheless, I join in the Majority’s discussion and disposition of the merits of Baney’s claims. As the Majority has observed, Baney’s challenges to the trial court’s jurisdiction, the legality of the sentence the court imposed, and the voluntariness of the plea Baney tendered are entirely frivolous. Consequently, they provide ample reason for counsel’s petition to withdraw and the Majority’s decision to grant that petition. See Anders, supra; Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981). These same claims, raised by Ba-ney in his pro se brief, are insufficient, per force, to demonstrate reversible trial court error. Accordingly, I agree with the Majority that Baney’s counsel must be permitted to withdraw and his judgment of sentence affirmed.