J-S23033-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee

v.

DAVID JULIUS PRICE, SR.,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1647 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 30, 2014, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, 

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006350-2013

BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2015

David Julius Price, Sr. (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered April 30, 2014, following his guilty plea to one count of 

driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) - highest rate of alcohol - third 

offense, three counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one 

count of driving while operating privilege was suspended or revoked. 

Counsel for Appellant has filed a petition to withdraw and brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. 

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). On June 11, 2015, this panel

remanded the case, directing counsel either to comply with the requirements 

of Anders or to file an advocate’s brief. Upon review of counsel’s new 

petition to withdraw and brief, we again remand this case with instructions.
J-S23033-15

- 2 -

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 nonfrivolous 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).

In our prior memorandum, we denied counsel’s petition to withdraw 

and pointed out deficiencies in counsel’s petition and Anders brief: counsel 

purportedly reviewed Appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim; 

however, counsel’s stated reason for concluding the argument was frivolous 

was legally erroneous; counsel failed to preserve properly the discretionary 

aspects claim by filing a separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement, and failed to 

indicate whether Appellant’s claim raised a substantial question for our 
J-S23033-15

- 3 -

review. With respect to the final two issues, we set forth for counsel the 

relevant procedure for challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence on 

direct 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 [filed]; (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); see Commonwealth v. Price, 1647 EDA 2014, at *6 n2 (Pa. 

Super. filed June 11, 2015).

On July 27, 2015, counsel filed a new petition to withdraw and Anders

brief. While he now concedes that the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s 

sentence are reviewable on direct appeal, counsel has once more failed to 

comply with the requirements of Disalvo. Accordingly, we are unable to 

review Appellant’s substantive issue.

Thus, we again “deny the petition to withdraw and remand the case 

with appropriate instructions ... directing counsel either to comply with 

Anders or file an advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf.” Wrecks, supra. 

We note that we will not countenance a third non-compliant effort.
J-S23033-15

- 4 -

Petition to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded with 

instructions. Jurisdiction retained.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/26/2015