J-S10024-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DOLLY S. HENDRICKES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1431 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-CR-0006007-2019

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JULY 15, 2022

Dolly S. Hendrickes appeals from the judgment of sentence of life 

without the possibility of parole imposed on her conviction for first-degree 

murder. Counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and an Anders

1 brief. We 

grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

We need not recite the underlying facts at length. In sum, a jury 

convicted Hendrickes after hearing evidence, including testimony from three 

eye-witnesses, which established that she had killed her boyfriend by running 

him over with her car. See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 22, 2021, at 

2-6. The court sentenced her to life without the possibility of parole and denied 

her post-sentence motion.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S10024-22

- 2 -

Hendrickes filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered her to file a 

concise statement of errors. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In her statement, 

Hendrickes raised (1) a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

first degree murder, alleging the evidence supported a heat of passion 

defense, and (2) the constitutionality of her sentence, alleging that a life 

sentence without the possibility of parole violates the Pennsylvania

Constitution’s prohibition against cruel punishments by presuming an offender 

is incapable of rehabilitation. 

As stated above, defense counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and an 

Anders brief. We must examine the request to withdraw before we assess the 

Anders brief. Commonwealth v. Redmond, 273 A.3d 1247, 1252

(Pa.Super., Apr. 21, 2022). The application to withdraw must state that, “after 

making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined 

that the appeal would be frivolous.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc)). Counsel must 

also advise the defendant that she “has the right to retain private counsel or 

raise additional arguments that [she] deems worthy of the court’s attention.” 

Id. (quoting Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1032).

Finally, counsel must provide the defendant and this Court with an 

Anders brief, which 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. 
J-S10024-22

- 3 -

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.

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

Counsel’s Motion states that he has examined the record and concluded 

that the appeal is frivolous. In the Anders brief, counsel explains his 

conclusions that the appeal is frivolous and that a sentence of life without the 

possibility of parole does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitutions’ 

prohibition on cruel punishment. He includes ample citation to relevant 

authority and the facts of record. In his letter to Hendrickes, counsel informed 

her of her right to obtain new counsel or raise any issues before this Court in 

response to his assertion of frivolousness. Counsel has met all procedural and 

briefing requirements. See id. We now turn to our own consideration of the

case. 

Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, counsel in the Anders brief 

explains that here, the jury was presented with two versions of events. In the 

Commonwealth’s case, an eyewitness testified that the victim got out of the 

car and Hendrickes turned vehicle towards him and ran him over. Police 

officers at the scene testified that Hendrickes was cool, calm, and collected. 

In contrast, according to Hendrickes’ testimony, there was a physical 

altercation in the car during which the victim threatened to cut her with a box 

cutter, and when he got out of the car, she ran him over without thinking. 

Counsel explains that the jury was permitted to believe the Commonwealth’s 

witness and not Hendrickes. He further points out that a heat-of-passion 
J-S10024-22

- 4 -

defense, seeking a voluntary manslaughter verdict, was unavailable because 

the altercation had ended, the victim had gotten out of the car and was 

walking away when struck, and Hendrickes had time to cool off. See 

Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943, 979-80 (Pa. 2013). We agree 

that there is no basis in law or fact on which to challenge the verdict here. 

Hendrickes’ sentencing issue is also frivolous. The legislature has 

mandated that a court shall sentence an adult convicted of first-degree murder 

to death or life imprisonment without parole. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(a)(1). 

A mandatory sentence of life without parole, when imposed on an adult 

defendant, does not violate the Eighth Amendment on the basis that it 

precludes consideration of mitigating circumstances. See Commonwealth v. 

Yount, 615 A.2d 1316, 1321 (Pa.Super. 1992); see also Commonwealth

v. Waters, 483 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa.Super. 1984) (“A mandatory life sentence, 

as established by the legislature, is clearly not cruel and unusual punishment 

for the crime of first-degree murder”). The Pennsylvania Constitution is 

coextensive with the federal Constitution on the point of cruel and unusual 

punishment. See Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734, 743 

(Pa.Super. 2008). Therefore, the mandatory sentence also does not violate 

the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Hendrickes has not responded to counsel’s Anders brief and withdrawal 

motion. Our independent review discloses no non-frivolous issues that would 

require an appeal. We therefore grant counsel’s Motion to Withdraw and affirm 

the judgment of sentence.
J-S10024-22

- 5 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Motion to Withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/15/2022