J-S52042-18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

DEVIN JOHN COYLE,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 347 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 29, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000861-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MCLAUGHLIN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 17, 2018

Devin John Coyle (Appellant) appeals from his January 29, 2018 

judgment of sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to defiant trespass and 

disorderly conduct. Counsel has also filed a petition to withdraw and a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon review, we 

deny counsel’s petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this memorandum.

On December 5, 2016, Appellant was involved in an incident at a local 

tavern, which resulted in him being charged with one count each of defiant 

trespass, harassment, and resisting arrest, and two counts of disorderly 

conduct. After a series of continuances, on November 27, 2017, Appellant 

entered a guilty plea to defiant trespass and disorderly conduct. The 

remaining charges were dismissed. On January 29, 2018, Appellant was 
J-S52042-18

- 2 -

sentenced to a term of three days to three months of incarceration for the 

defiant trespass conviction, and 12 months of probation for the disorderly 

conduct conviction. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Both Appellant 

and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, counsel has filed both an Anders brief and a petition to 

withdraw as counsel.1 Accordingly, the following principles guide our review.

Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders

must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious 

examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly 

frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth 

issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any 

other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation 

thereof....

Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders

petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the 

right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional 

points worthy of this Court’s attention.

If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical 

requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to 

withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g., 

directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an 

advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). By contrast, if counsel’s 

petition and brief satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our own 

review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous. If the 

appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and affirm 

the judgment of sentence. However, if there are non-frivolous 

issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the filing of an 

advocate’s brief. 

 

1 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief.
J-S52042-18

- 3 -

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(citations omitted). Further, our Supreme Court has specified the following 

requirements for the Anders brief:

[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s 

petition to withdraw, counsel 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) 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.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Counsel has failed to satisfy these requirements. Although counsel 

states he examined the record and concluded that this appeal is frivolous, 

Petition to Withdraw As Counsel, 6/20/2018, at ¶ 2, our review of the record 

reveals the absence of the transcripts from Appellant’s plea and sentencing 

hearings.

2

 “Without these notes of testimony, [c]ounsel could not have 

fulfilled his duty to review the record for any non-frivolous issues.” 

Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

On appeal, counsel has identified two issues for review, i.e., whether 

Appellant’s sentence is excessive and whether Appellant may withdraw his 

guilty plea. Anders Brief at 6. Without the transcripts of the plea and 

sentencing hearings, neither counsel nor this Court can satisfy its obligations 

 

2

In addition, counsel has not cited to these transcripts in his Anders brief.
J-S52042-18

- 4 -

under Anders and its progeny. See Flowers, 113 A.3d at 1250 (holding that 

“this Court must conduct an independent review of the record to discern if 

there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel”); 

Commonwealth v. Curry, 931 A.2d 700, 702 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Failure to 

supply a complete record to this Court for independent review will render a 

request to withdraw technically inadequate.”). Accordingly, we deny counsel’s 

petition to withdraw and remand this case for further proceedings consistent

with this memorandum. 

Upon remand, counsel must obtain the missing transcripts and ensure 

their inclusion in the certified record. Flowers, 113 A.3d at 1251. After 

review of the entire record, counsel shall file either an advocate’s brief or a 

new petition to withdraw and Anders brief that fully comply with the 

requirements detailed above. 

Petition to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel 

jurisdiction retained.