J-S13042-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSEPH L. STRATTON-KIEHLMEIER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1162 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 2, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-25-CR-0000939-2021

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 30, 2024

Joseph Stratton-Kiehlmeier appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after he pled no contest to terroristic threats.

1 He claims his due 

process rights were violated and his counsel was ineffective. Additionally,

Stratton-Kiehlmeier’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an 

accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Upon review, we grant counsel’s petition, and affirm the judgment of 

sentence.

On February 24, 2021, Stratton-Kiehlmeier flashed a gun at Teagan 

Bruno, the victim, in the parking lot of an Arby’s restaurant in the City of Erie, 

Pennsylvania. Stratton-Kiehlmeier, along with his cohort, threatened to shoot 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1).
J-S13042-24

- 2 -

Bruno. The Commonwealth claimed that Stratton-Kiehlmeier did not have a 

concealed carry permit for the weapon and had been convicted of a burglary 

previously, which prohibited him from having a gun. Stratton-Kiehlmeier was 

arrested and charged with multiple offenses. 

On May 2, 2022, Stratton-Kiehlmeier pled no contest to terroristic 

threats. The trial court sentenced Stratton-Kiehlmeier to 9 to 18 months’ 

incarceration and credited him with 391 days for time served; he was paroled 

immediately. Stratton-Kiehlmeier did not file a post-sentence motion or an 

appeal at that time.

More than a year later, on July 10, 2023, Stratton-Kiehlmeier filed a pro 

se motion to appeal his sentence. On August 30, 2023, the court entered an 

order granting Stratton-Kiehlmeier’s request to file his appeal nunc pro tunc

and appointed counsel. Counsel then filed this appeal. She later filed a 

petition to withdraw from representation and an Anders brief with this Court. 

Stratton-Kiehlmeier did not retain independent counsel or file a pro se

response to the Anders brief.

Before we may consider the issues raised in the Anders brief, we must 

first consider counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation. See

Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding 

that, when presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the 

merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to 

withdraw). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous 

and wishes to withdraw from representation, counsel must do the following:
J-S13042-24

- 3 -

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after 

making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has 

determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring 

to any issues that might arguably support the appeal, but which 

does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the 

brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new 

counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points [the 

defendant] deems worthy of this Court's attention.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

(citation omitted). In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 

2009), our Supreme Court addressed the second requirement of Anders, i.e., 

the contents of an Anders brief, and required that the brief:

(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. Once counsel has satisfied the Anders

requirements, it is then this Court’s responsibility “to conduct a simple review 

of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious 

issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” 

Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018). 

Here, counsel filed both an Anders brief and a petition for leave to 

withdraw. Further, the Anders brief substantially comports with the 
J-S13042-24

- 4 -

requirements set forth by our Supreme Court in Santiago. Finally, the record 

included a copy of the letter that counsel sent to Stratton-Kiehlmeier of 

counsel’s intention to seek permission to withdraw and advising StrattonKiehlmeier of his right to proceed pro se or retain new counsel and file 

additional claims. Accordingly, as counsel has complied with the procedural 

requirements for withdrawing from representation, we will conduct an 

independent review to determine whether Stratton-Kiehlmeier appeal is 

wholly frivolous.

In the Anders brief, counsel indicates that Stratton-Kiehlmeier wishes 

to raise the following issues:

1. Did the police's failure to file an affidavit of probable cause 

result in the Commonwealth holding him illegally, engaging in 

misconduct, and violating his right to due process?

2. Did trial counsel's representation of a "confidential human 

source" in [Stratton-Kiehlmeier's] federal case constitute a conflict 

of interest?

3. Did trial counsel's illness and loss of a very close family member 

so affect his state of mind that he did not properly represent 

[Stratton-Kiehlmeier's] interests?

Anders Brief at 7.

Initially, we observe that Stratton-Kiehlmeier entered a guilty plea in 

this case. The entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all defects and 

defenses except lack of jurisdiction, invalidity of the plea, and illegality of the 

sentence. Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1267 (Pa. Super. 

2006); Commonwealth v. Messmer, 863 A.2d 567, 571 (Pa. Super. 2004). 
J-S13042-24

- 5 -

Consequently, an appellant may only challenge these defects on appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Rush, 909 A.2d 805, 807 (Pa. Super. 2006). 

Stratton-Kiehlmeier raised three issues on appeal. Notably, none of 

them involve the type of defect which can be raised following a guilty plea. 

As such, his claims are not cognizable. 

Additionally, none of the issues Stratton-Kiehlmeier raised on appeal 

were raised with the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Issues not first raised 

in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.2

Id. To the extent that Stratton-Kiehlmeier claims that counsel’s actions

impacted his plea, including failure to challenge the affidavit of probable 

cause, Stratton-Kiehlmeier did not object at the plea hearing or file a postsentence motion raising these issues. 

Consequently, Stratton-Kiehlmeier's issues are waived. Because they 

are waived, the issues are frivolous under Anders. See Commonwealth v.

Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888-89 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v.

Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 291 (Pa. Super. 2008) (holding that when an issue 

has been waived, “pursuing th[e] matter on direct appeal is frivolous”).

____________________________________________

2 We also note that, except in limited, identified circumstances, “claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel are to be deferred to PCRA review.”

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 576 (Pa. 2013). StrattonKiehlmeier can raise these issues in a timely petition under the Post Conviction 

Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S13042-24

- 6 -

Further, in accordance with Dempster, we have independently 

reviewed the certified record to determine if there are any non-frivolous issues 

that counsel may have overlooked. Having found none, we agree that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw 

and affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

DATE: 05/30/2024