354 Pa. Super. 87 - Commonwealth v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “there are two purposes to be served by counsel’s filing a brief that refers to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal: (1) it gives the reviewing court a basis upon which to decide if the appeal is, in fact, frivolous, and (2) it gives indigent defendants “as nearly as is practicable” that which is guaranteed them under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the right to counsel (and, in the process, protects counsel from ineffectiveness allegations). If we were to accept a counsel's conclusion, that an appeal was wholly frivolous, without more, “counsel would become the ‘court’ determining the merits of a defendant’s appeal.” Commonwealth v. McGeth, [ 347 Pa.Super. 333 ] 342 n. 6, 500 A.2d [860,] 868 n. 6 (HOFFMAN, J., concurring). In any event, we perceive no conflict: counsel who honestly believes that an appeal is wholly frivolous need not argue as an advocate would, but need only set out the issues in brief “neutral” form in order that a reviewing court, in most instances this Court, can address the defendant’s contentions. Furthermore, by counsel’s not arguing against his or her client, a defendant will not be “sandbagged when the counsel appointed by one arm of the Government seems to be helping another to seal his doom.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 451 Pa. 69, 75 , 301 A.2d 811, 815 (1973) (quoting Suggs v. United States, 391 F.2d 971, 974 (D.C.Cir. 1968)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 367 Pa. Super. 370 - Commonwealth v. Rauser · Commonwealth v. Smith

2. “(1) [Cjounsel must petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, it has been determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, but which does not resemble a no-merit letter or amicus curiae brief; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 428 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Torres · 417 Pa. Super. 154 - Commonwealth v. Kennedy

3. ““(1) [to] give[ ] the reviewing court a basis upon which to decide if the appeal is, in fact, frivolous, and (2)[to] give[] indigent defendants ‘as nearly as is practicable’ that which is guaranteed them under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the right to counsel (and, in the process, [to] protect[ ] counsel from ineffectiveness allegations). If we were to accept a counsel’s conclusion that an appeal was wholly frivolous, without more, ‘counsel would become the “court” determining the merits of a defendant’s appeal.’ In any event, we perceive no conflict: counsel who honestly believes that an appeal is wholly frivolous need not argue as an advocate would, but need only set out the issues in brief ‘neutral’ form in order that a reviewing court, in most instances this Court, can address the defendant’s contentions. Furthermore, by counsel’s not arguing against his or her client, a defendant will not be ‘sandbagged when the counsel appointed by one arm of the Government seems to be helping another to seal his doom.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Miller