J-S04016-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JAMIEL WALIQUE DOYLE 

Appellant No. 1153 MDA 2020

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered August 11, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No: CP-22-CR-0002116-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2021

Appellant, Jamiel Walique Doyle, appeals from the order entered in the 

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2020, dismissing 

Appellant’s petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In addition, his counsel has filed 

an application to withdraw. Upon review, we affirm the PCRA court’s order 

and grant counsel’s application to withdraw. 

Following a December 3, 2018 bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of 

aggravated assault and not guilty of criminal mischief, charges that stemmed 

from a March 3, 2017 altercation outside a Susquehanna Township bar. On 

January 28, 2019, the trial court imposed a sentence of 50 to 120 months in 

prison. Counsel informed the court that she would advise Appellant of his 

post-sentence rights. Thereafter, Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
J-S04016-21

- 2 -

On October 4, 2019, Appellant filed a timely pro se first PCRA petition. 

Counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition alleging trial counsel 

ineffectiveness for failing to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence or a 

direct appeal. An evidentiary hearing was conducted by videoconference on 

August 6, 2020. As the court explained: 

At the PCRA hearing, [Appellant] testified that after his sentencing 

hearing he and [trial counsel] spoke on the way out of the 

courtroom regarding a direct appeal. He indicated that when he 

asked [trial counsel] if he could appeal, she told him that it could 

result in getting more jail time because the judge gave him a 

break regarding sentencing. [Appellant] did not reach out to [trial 

counsel] again personally, but he had [his fiancée] reach out to 

her. [Appellant] testified that [his fiancée’s] discussion with [trial 

counsel] resulted in an indication that if [Appellant] were to file a 

post-sentence motion, his penalty could potentially get worse.

[Appellant’s fiancée] testified at the hearing and confirmed that 

she had spoken to [trial counsel] after [Appellant] had been 

sentenced. [Appellant’s fiancée] attested that [trial counsel] 

indicated that filing an appeal could get [Appellant] more prison 

time. [Appellant’s fiancée] testified that she told [trial counsel] 

that “we didn’t want to get more time and that I would speak to 

[Appellant] about it. And we had decided not to because we didn’t 

want more time.”

PCRA Court Opinion, 12/22/20, at 2-3 (references to notes of testimony 

omitted). Trial counsel also testified at the hearing. She testified that she 

explained post-sentence rights to Appellant on the day of his hearing and 

discussed the time limitations for filing an appeal. Appellant did not instruct 

her to file an appeal and she did not speak with Appellant again about filing 

an appeal. However, counsel did speak with Appellant’s fiancée and advised 

her there were no guarantees Appellant would receive a mitigated sentence—
J-S04016-21

- 3 -

as he did following his bench trial—if he appealed and received a new trial. 

Appellant’s fiancée said she would talk with Appellant but “they were not 

inclined to file an appeal.” Id. at 3. Counsel “never heard back from either 

[Appellant or his fiancée] about filing an appeal.” Id. 

Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, and in light of 

Appellant’s failure to demonstrate that he requested counsel to file an appeal, 

the PCRA court denied the petition. This timely appeal followed. The PCRA 

court directed counsel to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. In response, counsel 

filed a representation under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(d)(3) that no errors were being 

asserted and counsel intended to seek to withdraw under 

Anders/Santiago.

1-2 The PCRA court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on 

December 22, 2020, explaining that Appellant could not demonstrate 

ineffectiveness for failing to file an appeal because he did not ask trial counsel 

to file one. 

____________________________________________

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 

978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). 

2 The PCRA court noted that, in response to the court’s Rule 1925(b) order, 

Appellant “filed numerous pro se statements of issues for appeal, along with 

other motions and correspondence. It is well-established that a defendant is 

not entitled to file pro se documents while represented by counsel.” PCRA 

Court Opinion, 12/22/20, at 2 n.2 (citations omitted). 
J-S04016-21

- 4 -

Initially, we note that “[o]ur standard of review of the denial of a PCRA

petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the 

court’s determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 960-61 (Pa. Super. 2019) 

(citation omitted). 

In this appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief3 and an 

application to withdraw. The Anders brief renews the challenge asserted 

below, i.e., whether the [PCRA] court abused its discretion when it “improperly 

dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA claim.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. Before we 

address the merits of the challenge, however, we must consider the adequacy 

of counsel’s compliance with Anders and Santiago. Our Supreme Court 

requires that counsel to do the following. 

Prior to withdrawing as counsel . . . under Anders, counsel must 

file a brief that meets the requirements established by our 

Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief must:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and 

facts, with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel 

believes arguably supports the appeal;

____________________________________________

3 As this Court has recognized, a no-merit letter in accordance with 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth 

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), is the appropriate filing 

when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal from denial of PCRA relief. 

Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

“Because an Anders brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this 

Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.” Id. 

(citation omitted). 
J-S04016-21

- 5 -

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is 

frivolous; and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the 

appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant 

facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on 

point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is 

frivolous.

Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client. 

Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his 

right to: (1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed 

pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems 

worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to the points raised 

by counsel in the Anders brief.

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361) (additional citation omitted). 

Counsel’s brief complies with these requirements by (1) providing a 

summary of the procedural history and facts; (2) referring to matters of record 

relevant to this appeal; and (3) explaining why the appeal is frivolous. 

Counsel also sent his brief to Appellant with a letter advising him of the rights 

listed in Orellana.

4

 All of Anders’ requirements are satisfied. 

Appellant argues that the PCRA court abused its discretion when it 

denied his PCRA petition, which claimed trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing 

to file a direct appeal. Appellant cites case law establishing that counsel is per 

se ineffective if a defendant establishes that the defendant asked counsel to 

file an appeal and the request was disregarded. Appellant’s Brief at 11 (citing 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant has not availed himself of the rights listed in Orellana and outlined 

in counsel’s letter.
J-S04016-21

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 571 (Pa. 1999)). Further, if a 

request for direct appeal is ignored by counsel, the defendant should be 

granted an appeal nunc pro tunc. Id. at 12 (citing Commonwealth v. 

Bronaugh, 670 A.2d 147, 149 (Pa. Super. 1995)). 

While an ignored request to file an appeal warrants relief, the evidence 

here establishes that Appellant did not request that trial counsel file an appeal. 

As Appellant acknowledges: 

The testimony reflected that trial counsel properly advised 

Appellant and [his fiancée] regarding the procedures for filing a 

direct appeal but also the potential pitfalls for filing a direct appeal. 

It was established through [the fiancée’s] testimony that after 

consultation with trial counsel, the Appellant elected not to file a 

direct appeal.

Id. at 13. 

The PCRA court concluded that Appellant did not ask trial counsel to file 

an appeal. PCRA Court Opinion, 12/22/20, at 4. “This finding is supported by 

the record as reflected in [trial counsel’s] testimony and credited by this court. 

Further, [Appellant’s fiancée] indicated that [Appellant] had decided against 

an appeal. Thus, [Appellant’s] claim lacks merit.” Id. (some capitalization 

omitted). 

We have examined the evidence of record and find it supports the PCRA 

court’s determination. Further, we conclude the court’s decision is free of 

legal error. Therefore, we affirm the August 11, 2020 order denying 

Appellant’s petition. Further, we grant counsel’s application to withdraw.

Order affirmed. Application to withdraw granted. 
J-S04016-21

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/12/2021