J-S58035-16

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANTHONY GOODWIN

Appellant No. 199 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 22, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0001272-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BOWES, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 12, 2016

Appellant, Anthony Goodwin, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

open guilty plea to escape.1 We affirm and grant counsel’s petition to 

withdraw. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. 

Following Appellant’s failure to return to official detention while serving a 

work release sentence, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with escape at 

docket # CP-35-CR-0001072-2014 (“docket # 1072-2014”). Appellant pled 

guilty to escape on June 13, 2014, and the court sentenced Appellant to two 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121(a). 
J-S58035-16

- 2 -

(2) years’ restrictive intermediate punishment on September 30, 2014. On 

March 24, 2015, Appellant filed a motion for furlough to Pyramid Healthcare 

Center, which the court granted on April 1, 2015. The court’s April 1, 2015 

order advised Appellant that failure to remain in the court-ordered treatment 

would result in another escape charge. On April 29, 2015, Appellant left 

treatment at Pyramid Healthcare Center against medical advice. 

On August 3, 2015, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with escape 

at docket # CP-35-CR-0001272-2015 (“docket # 1272-2015”). On October 

26, 2015, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to escape. The court 

deferred sentencing pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation 

(“PSI”) report. On December 22, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant for 

the Gagnon violation at docket # 1072-2014 and the instant escape 

conviction at docket # 1272-2015. Specifically, the court sentenced 

Appellant to a term of nine (9) to twenty-four (24) months’ incarceration at 

docket # 1072-2014, and a consecutive term of twelve (12) to twenty-four 

(24) months’ imprisonment at docket # 1272-2015. On December 29, 

2015, Appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which 

the court denied on January 5, 2016. 

On January 29, 2016, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the 

sentence imposed at docket # 1272-2015 only. On February 4, 2016, the 

court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on 
J-S58035-16

- 3 -

February 9, 2016. On May 6, 2016, Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders

brief and petition to withdraw as counsel in this Court. 

As a preliminary matter, counsel seeks to withdraw her representation 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349 

(2009). Anders and Santiago require counsel to: (1) petition the Court for 

leave to withdraw, certifying that after a thorough review of the record, 

counsel has concluded the issues to be raised are wholly frivolous; (2) file a 

brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the appellant and advise him of 

his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se brief to raise any additional 

points the appellant deems worthy of review. Santiago, supra at 173-79, 

978 A.2d at 358-61. Substantial compliance with these requirements is 

sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa.Super. 

2007). After establishing that counsel has met the antecedent requirements 

to withdraw, this Court makes an independent review of the record to 

confirm that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 

A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super. 2006).

In Santiago, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the briefing 

requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw 

representation:

Neither Anders nor [Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 

Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981)] requires that counsel’s 
J-S58035-16

- 4 -

brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of 

argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To 

repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are 

references to anything in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal.

* * *

Under Anders, the right to counsel is vindicated by 

counsel’s examination and assessment of the record and 

counsel’s references to anything in the record that 

arguably supports the appeal. 

Santiago, supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court held:

[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. 

Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.

Instantly, Appellant’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw. The petition 

states counsel conducted a conscientious review of the record and 

determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel also supplied Appellant 

with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining Appellant’s right to retain new 

counsel or to proceed pro se to raise any additional issues Appellant deems 

worthy of this Court’s attention. (See Letter to Appellant, dated May 6, 

2016, attached to Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel). In the 

Anders brief, counsel provides a summary of the facts and procedural 
J-S58035-16

- 5 -

history of the case. Counsel’s argument refers to relevant law that might

arguably support Appellant’s issues. Counsel further states the reasons for 

her conclusion that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, counsel has 

substantially complied with the requirements of Anders and Santiago. 

Counsel raises the following issue on Appellant’s behalf: 

WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS 

INAPPROPRIATELY HARSH AND EXCESSIVE AND AN 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

(Anders Brief at 4). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael J. 

Barrasse, we conclude Appellant’s issue on appeal merits no relief. The trial 

court opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the question 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 29, 2016, at 3-8) (finding: 

Appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentence claim fails to raise substantial 

question where sentence is within standard range of guidelines, conforms to 

sentencing norms, and is appropriate under facts and circumstances of case; 

even if Appellant raised substantial question, claim would still merit no relief, 

where court had benefit of PSI report at sentencing; court considered 

Appellant’s prior record score and fact that this was Appellant’s second 

escape offense; Appellant’s instant escape conviction stemmed from 

Appellant’s decision to leave medical treatment without authorization; 

Appellant has failed to take advantage of court’s efforts to assist Appellant 
J-S58035-16

- 6 -

with his substance abuse issues; instead, Appellant’s actions demonstrate 

complete disregard for law and court’s authority; after consideration of 

particular circumstance of offense, impact on community, need to deter 

Appellant from committing this type of offense, and protection of 

community, court imposed standard range guideline sentence; thus, 

Appellant’s claim that his sentence is unduly harsh and excessive has no 

merit). Following our independent review of the record, we conclude the 

appeal is frivolous. See Palm, supra. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis 

of the trial court opinion and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed; counsel’s petition to withdraw is 

granted. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/12/2016
1 

October 26, 2015, at p. 3. 

Care Center and failed to return. See Kosch Affidavit of Probable Cause; N.T. Guilty Plea, 

which Appellant left against medical advice from Court Ordered treatment at Pyramid Health 

violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5121(a). This charge stemmed from an April 29, 2015, incident in 

Under docket number CP-35-CR-0001272-2015, Appellant was charged with Escape in 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

of the Defendant, this Court's December 22, 2015, Judgment of Sentence should be affirmed. 

For the following reasons, based on a review of the record, the facts of the case, and the characte 

A. Whether the sentence imposed was inappropriately harsh and excessive and an abuse 

of discretion? 

. Defendant's sole issue on appeal is as follows, verbatim: 

Procedure and pursuant to the request of the Superior Court. Defendant Anthony Goodwin 

(herein after "Defendant") ~ppeals this Court's December 22, 2015, Judgment of Sentence . 

I--• t= !"7 w . ' 

This opinion is filed pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

BARRASSE, P.J. 

OPINION 

ANTHONY GOODWIN 

15 CR 1272 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY 

Circulated 09/15/2016 11:44 AM
2 

2 Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence on September 30, 2014, which this Court denied on 

October 1, 2014. Defendant then filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court. Upon Defendant's application, the 

Appeal was discontinued on April 1, 2015. See Commonwealth.v •. AnthO'lty,Goodwin; 1847 MDA.2014. 

1 Under docket number CP-35-CR-0002614-2012, Defendant was sentenced to three (3) to twelve (12) months' 

imprisonment by the Honorable Vito P. Geroulo on May 2, 2013. Defendant was under supervision at the time of his 

2014 Escape charge as a result of numerous probation/parole violations. 

January 5, 2016. Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court on January 29, 2016. 

Sentence on both the Escape charge and the Gagnon violation, which this Court denied on 

On December 29, 2015, counsel for the Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of 

incarceration with boot camp eligibility. 

consecutive, resulting in an aggregate sentence of twenty-one (21) to forty-right (48) months' 

35-CR-0001072-2014, this Court sentenced Defendant to nine (9) months to two (2) years, 

5121(a), this Court sentenced Defendant to twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) months. Under CP35-CR,0001072-2014. Under CP-35--CR-0001272-2015, Escape in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 

under docket number CP-35-CR-0001272-2015 and a Gagnon violation under docket number C - 

Therefore, on December 22, 2015, Defendant was sentenced on both the Escape charge 

Appellant left treatment, he would be charged with Escape. 

April 1, 2015, this Court granted the Motion for Furlough, and in its Order advised that if 

the Appellant filed a Motion for Furlough to Pyramid Health Care Center on March 24, 2015. 0 

days on House Arrest.' Thereafter under docket number CP-35-CR-0001072-2014, counsel for 

punishment with the first ninety (90) days in Lackawanna County Prison, followed by ninety (90 

September 30, 3014, this Court sentenced Defendant to two (2) years' restrictive intermediate 

while serving a sentence for Open Lewdness in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 59011 • On 

14, 2014, incident in which Defendant failed to return to official detention while on Work Relea e 

an Escape charge in violation on 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5121(a). That charge was the result of a May 

Defendant was also serving a sentence under docket number CP-35-CR-0001072-2014 Dr 
3 

post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing 

"Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a 

2010),<t?Yu.\ denied, 609 Pa. 685. 

Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 58 6(Pa. Super. 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the 

the issue to be heard on appeal, (iii) filed a brief free of fatal defects, and (iv) raised a 

ascertain whether an appellant (i) filed a timely notice of appeal, (ii) properly preserved 

Before reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, a court must 

1185 (Pa. Super.2001) (citations omitted)). 

1185, 1193-1194 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 

considered a petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 

the discretionary aspects of sentencing. Rather, this type of appeal is more appropriately 

Initially, this Court notes that no automatic right of appeal exists for a challenge to 

Defendant's claim is meritless. 

inappropriately harsh and excessive and an abuse of discretion. This Court believes that 

of the sentence imposed by this Court. Defendant baldly asserts that the sentence is 

Defendant's only matter complained of on appeal challenges a discretionary aspect 

I. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED_BY THIS COURT WAS NOT 

INAPPROPRIATELY HARSH AND EXCESSIVE, NOR DID THIS .COURT 

ABUSE ITS DISCRETION. 

DISCUSSION 

2015. 

However, Defendant is only appealing the sentence under docket number CP-35-CR-0001272- 
4 

proceedings. Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is 

waived." Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532, 538 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

A court evaluates whether a particular issue raises a substantial question on a caseby-case basis. Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

"[The court] will grant an appeal only when the appellant advances a colorable argument 

that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision 

of the Sentencing Code or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the 

sentencing process." Commonwealth v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726, 735 (Pa. Super. 1999) 

(en bane). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that a claim regarding a sentence 

being excessive which is within the statutory limits can raise a substantial question, if the 

Appellant "sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a 

specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a 

particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process." Commonwealth v. 

Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002). However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court 

does not accept bald allegations of excessiveness. Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 

A.2d 720, 733 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

This Court believes that no substantial question exists to Defendant's sentence, as 

the sentences imposed upon Defendant were within the guidelines and otherwise 

conformed to sentencing norms, and were appropriate under the facts and circumstances 

of the case. 

Even assuming Defendant's sentence is an appealable issue, this Court believes the 

sentence was appropriate and should be affirmed. The standard of review for challenges to 

discretionary aspects of sentencing is as follows: 
5 

agents. Commonwealth v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605, 644 (Pa. 2001); Commonwealth v. 

remorse, manifestation of social conscience, and cooperation with law enforcement 

determine a defendant's potential for rehabilitation by considering his demeanor, apparent 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). A sentencing court may 

related to the impact on the life of the victims and on the community, and the 

must be "consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it 

Walls, 926 A.2d at 961-62 (citations omitted). Furthermore, a sentence of confinement 

Simply stated, the sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood defendants and the 

nuances of sentencing decisions are difficult to gauge from the cold transcript used 

upon appellate review. Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys an institutional 

advantage to appellate review, bringing to its decisions an expertise, experience, 

and judgment that should not be lightly disturbed. Even with the advent of the 

sentencing guidelines, the power of sentencing is a function to be performed by the 

sentencing court. Thus, rather than cabin the exercise of a sentencing court's 

discretion, the guidelines merely inform the sentencing decision. 

standard is as follows: 

1046 (2003). The rationale offered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for this deferential 

so as to be clearly erroneous." Id., quoting Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038, 

manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support 

an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of 

will." Id. (quotations omitted). "An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because 

exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or illcourt will not have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment 

2007). "[AJn abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of judgment. ... [A] sentencing 

manifest abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 

sound discretion of the sentencing.court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a 

It is well-established law that the sentencing function is a matter vested within the 
6 

Constantine, 478 A.2d 39 (Pa. Super. 1984); Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 442 A.2d 

820 (Pa. Super. 1982), Moreover, facts regarding the nature and circumstances of the 

offense that are not necessarily elements of the convicted offense, are proper facts to 

consider in deciding to sentence in the mitigated range or the aggravated minimum range. 

Commonwealth v. Chilguist, 548 A.2d 272 (Pa. Super. 1988). See also, 

Commonwealth v. Darden, 531 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 1987) (" ... facts regarding 

the nature and circumstances of the offense, which are not necessary elements of the 

offense for which appellant has been convicted, are also proper factors to consider in 

deciding whether to sentence in the mitigated minimum range, the aggravated minimum 

range, or outside the guidelines."). Additionally, trial courts are permitted to use prior 

conviction history and other facts already included in the guidelines, if they supplement 

other extraneous sentencing information. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334, 

339 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

Additionally, if a presentence investigative report exists, Pennsylvania Courts shall 

presume that the sentencing court "was aware of relevant information concerning the 

defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory 

factors. A pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself." 

Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988). The Devers court further 

articulated that "it would be foolish, indeed, to take the position that if a court is in 

possession of the facts, it will fail to apply them to the case at hand." Id. See 

Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2004); Commonwealth v. Burns, 

765 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2000). 
7 

CONCLUSION 

In this case, prior to imposing sentence, this Court had the benefit of a presentence 

investigation report, which it reviewed in its entirety. This Court considered Defendant's Prior 

Record Score of 5. The Court also considered that this was the Defendant's second time escapin . 

N.T. Sentencing, December 22, 2015, at p. 2. This Court previously sentenced him in the lowe 

range and gave the Defendant house arrest, yet the Defendant Still escaped. Id. at p, 3. Here, a · 

sentence of confinement was appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The 

Escape charge under CP-35-CR-0001272-2015 was the result of Defendant unlawfully leaving 

Court Ordered treatment against medical advice, while serving another sentence on an Escape 

charge. This Court has been attempting to assist Appellant in dealing with his substance abuse 

issues and returning to the community, but Appellant has failed to take advantage of said 

assistance and blatantly disrespects the authority and supervision of this Court. The Defendant 

has shown a complete lack of regard and respect for the law and this Court's authority. The 

underlying offense in this matter, the initial Escape charge in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5121( ) 

was the result of Defendant failing to return to detention following work release on a sentence he 

was previously serving. As stated above, Defendant was sentenced within the guidelines for the 

offenses committed. This Court then considered the particular circumstances of the offenses 

committed, the impact on the community, the need to deter Defendant and others from 

committing this type of offense, and the protection of the community at large. 

As such, this Court imposed an appropriate sentence, which considered all facts and 

circumstances, the guidelines, and the purposes of sentencing. Therefore, since no abuse of 

discretion occurred, this Court's December 22, 2015 sentence should be affirmed. 
8 

DonnaM. DeVita, Esq. 

Lackawanna County Public Defender's Office 

200 N. Washington Avenue 

Scranton, PA 18503 

Lisa A. Swift, Esq. 

Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office 

200 N. Washington A venue 

Scranton, PA 18503 

Michael J. Barrasse 

Judgment of Sentence of this Court should be affirmed. 

given the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, this Court's December 22, 2015 

CC: Notice of the entry of the foregoing Memorandum has been provided to each party pursuan 

to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 114 by mailing time-stamped copies to the follo · g 

individuals: 

Accordingly, the sentence imposed by this Court was appropriate under the guidelines d