J-S72034-14

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

CHRISTOPHER WALKER,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 782 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 10, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-25-CR-0003631-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2015

Christopher Walker (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

of 12 to 24 months of incarceration following his no contest pleas to simple 

assault and disorderly conduct. Also before us is counsel’s petition to 

withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We 

affirm the judgment of sentence and grant the petition to withdraw.

The trial court summarized the history of the case as follows.

On February 2, 2014, Appellant appeared before th[e trial 

c]ourt and entered a no contest plea to Count 1, simple assault 

(misdemeanor of [the] second degree) and Count 2, disorderly 

conduct (misdemeanor of the third degree). These charges 

arose from an incident that took place on November 8, 2013 in 

Millcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania. On that date, 

Appellant pushed the victim onto a bed, placed a pillow over her 

head, struck her, and then threw her onto the floor. To add 

insult to injury, he spit on her. The disorderly conduct involved 
J-S72034-14

- 2 -

his conduct vis-à-vis the police officers who responded to the 

incident.

On April 10, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to a term of 

12 to 24 months’ incarceration on the simple assault charge and 

a concurrent 6 to 12 months’ incarceration on the disorderly 

conduct charge. These were standard range sentences. 

On May 8, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

On May 9, 2014, th[e trial c]ourt ordered Appellant to file a 

concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal pursuant 

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied on May 19, 

2014....

Trial Court Opinion, 6/18/2014, at 1-2 (some punctuation modified).

Counsel filed with this court a petition to withdraw and an Anders 

brief. Thus, before we consider the substance of this appeal, we must 

address counsel’s compliance with Anders:

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-
J-S72034-14

- 3 -

frivolous issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the 

filing of an advocate's brief.

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

(citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has clarified portions of the Anders procedure:

Accordingly, we hold that in 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.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

Based upon our examination of counsel’s petition to withdraw and 

Anders brief, we conclude that counsel has satisfied the above 

requirements.1 Therefore, we shall conduct an independent review of the 

appeal to determine whether it is indeed wholly frivolous. 

The Anders brief states one issue that arguably supports this appeal: 

“Whether the Appellant’s sentence is manifestly excessive, clearly 

unreasonable and inconsistent with the objectives of the Pennsylvania 

Sentencing Code?” Anders Brief at 3.

 

1 Appellant has not filed a pro se response raising any additional points for 

our consideration. 
J-S72034-14

- 4 -

Appellant’s question challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. Accordingly, we bear in mind the following.

It is well settled that, with regard to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing, there is no automatic right to appeal.

Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to 

the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage 

in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the 

appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his 

issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise 

statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of 

appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of 

sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a 

substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under 

the sentencing code.... [I]f the appeal satisfies each of 

these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide 

the substantive merits of the case.

Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations 

omitted).

Nowhere in the record is any indication that Appellant preserved his 

challenge for appeal by raising it at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. 

However, under our Anders review we will consider the merits of the issue. 

See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784, 787 (Pa. Super. 2001) 

(concluding that Anders requires review of issues which otherwise would be 

waived on appeal)). 

The instant statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of 

appeal claims that Appellant’s sentence violates the following provision of 

the Sentencing Code: “The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and 
J-S72034-14

- 5 -

remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds: ... the 

sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case 

involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be 

clearly unreasonable[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2). Anders Brief at 5. 

Further, Appellant maintains that his sentence is inconsistent with 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9721(b)2 because “the objectives of protecting the public and rehabilitation 

could have been achieved without such a lengthy sentence”. Anders Brief 

at 6. 

Assuming arguendo that Appellant’s issues raise a substantial 

question, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering 

standard-range, concurrent sentences. The sentencing transcript reveals 

that the trial court considered the pre-sentence investigation report, the 

sentencing guidelines, and the statements of counsel for Appellant and the 

Commonwealth regarding mitigating factors, the impact on the victim, and 

Appellant’s repeated failure to seek help for his alcohol-abuse and angermanagement issues despite his extensive prior record of “multiple assaults, 

DUIs, public drunks [sic] and disorderly conducts.” N.T., 4/10/2014, at 7. 

 

2 This section provides, in relevant part: “In selecting from the alternatives 

set forth in subsection (a), the court shall follow the general principle that 

the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the 

protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact 

on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs 

of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). 
J-S72034-14

- 6 -

In announcing Appellant’s sentence, the trial court offered the following 

explanation:

In your particular case it’s been pointed out you’ve got 

prior assault charges, DUI charges, public drunkenness, 

disorderly conduct, defiant trespass. You’ve basically been a 

pain for most of the magisterial district judges that have had to 

deal with you over the years. You’ve been sentenced to county 

level jail sentences; been sentenced before the magistrate 

district ... judges; you were sentenced in Texas. You completed 

some of your sentences successfully, revoked in others.

So when you look at the whole view of this thing, you’re 

really no better off than when you started committing offenses, 

which I think started all the way back in 1997 shortly after you 

got out of high school. ...

I don’t know ... what you’ve been thinking about, but if I 

gave you probation they should impeach me because it would be 

absolutely absurd, given your record.

You’ve got to take responsibility for your life and you 

haven’t done that.

Id. at 9-10. 

Clearly, the trial court individualized Appellant’s sentence based on the 

failure of past, lesser terms of confinement to cause Appellant to change his 

ways, the necessity to protect the public from Appellant’s repeated criminal 

behavior, and Appellant’s need for state supervision and the attendant 

counseling offered for alcohol abuse and anger management. Id. at 11. We 

discern no indication that “the the sentencing court ignored or misapplied 

the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill 

will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S72034-14

- 7 -

Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760-61 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 26 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

Therefore, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to Withdraw as Counsel 

granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/13/2015