J-S07015-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JUSTIN SINGER,

Appellant No. 2216 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 1, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000415-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E. , PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 30, 2018

Appellant, Justin Singer, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 21

to 60 months’ incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted him of flight to 

avoid apprehension, trial or punishment, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5126(a). On appeal, 

Appellant seeks to challenge the trial court’s admission of a video recording 

that, according to Appellant, was not properly authenticated. Additionally, 

Appellant’s counsel, Steven E. Burlein, Esq., seeks to withdraw his

representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

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

careful review, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s 

petition to withdraw.

In Attorney Burlein’s Anders brief, he sets forth the facts and 

procedural history of Appellant’s case as follows:
J-S07015-18

- 2 -

On or about July 26, 2016, at roughly 7:30 p.m., [Officer 

Keith Rynearson,] a member of the Honesdale Borough Police

[Department,] was on patrol on Willow Avenue in the Borough of 

Honesdale. He observed a vehicle pass him in the opposite lane 

with an expired inspection sticker. [Officer] Rynearson then 

followed the vehicle to the parking lot of Cordaro’s Restaurant, 

where the vehicle went to the rear of the parking lot and parked. 

A male exited the vehicle, [Officer] Rynearson attempted to talk 

to him, and the male fled the scene. [Officer] Rynearson chased 

the male but was unable to apprehend him. The male was later 

identified as [] Appellant, ... and [he] was further identified as 

being wanted for absconding from PA State Parole. [Officer] 

Rynearson thereafter viewed video surveillance from Cordaro’s 

Restaurant parking lot to confirm the identity of [] Appellant. []

Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged with the crime 

of Flight to Avoid Apprehension, Trial or Punishment (F3).

[] Appellant was convicted of the Flight charge [following] a 

[j]ury [t]rial on May 10, 2017. He was sentenced June 1, 2017 

and received 21 ... to 60 months[’ incarceration] at a State 

Correctional Institution. At the request of [] Appellant, 

undersigned counsel filed this [a]ppeal.

Anders Brief at 5. 

After Appellant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court ordered him to file 

a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant timely complied, raising the 

following issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement:

Whether the trial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law in overruling the 

objection of [Appellant], and allowing the security video footage 

to be shown to the jury, without proper authentication or 

identification.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 7/25/17, at 1 (single page). The trial court 

issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion on September 8, 2017.

On December 9, 2017, Attorney Burlein filed with this Court a petition 

to withdraw from representing Appellant. That same day, counsel also filed 

an Anders brief, discussing the above-stated issue and concluding that it is 
J-S07015-18

- 3 -

frivolous. Attorney Burlein also concludes that Appellant has no other, nonfrivolous issues he could pursue herein. 

As this Court has explained, we

must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before 

reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented by [the 

appellant]. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (en banc).

Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders,

counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements established 

by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief 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. Counsel also must provide a copy of 

the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a letter 

that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to 

pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any 

points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s attention 

in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” 

Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 

2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 704, 936 A.2d 40 (2007).

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014). After 

determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of Anders 

and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct an independent review of the 

record to discern if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked 
J-S07015-18

- 4 -

by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 

2015) (citations and footnote omitted).

In this case, Attorney Burlein’s Anders brief complies with the abovestated requirements. Namely, he includes a summary of the relevant factual 

and procedural history, he refers to portions of the record that could arguably 

support Appellant’s claim, and he sets forth his conclusion that Appellant’s 

appeal is frivolous. He also explains his reasons for reaching that 

determination, and supports his rationale with citations to the record and 

pertinent legal authority. Attorney Burlein also states in his petition to 

withdraw that he has supplied Appellant with a copy of his Anders brief. 

Additionally, he attached to his petition to withdraw a letter directed to 

Appellant in which he informs Appellant of the rights enumerated in Nischan. 

Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical requirements for 

withdrawal. We will now independently review the record to determine if 

Appellant’s issue is frivolous, and to ascertain if there are any other, nonfrivolous issues he could pursue on appeal. 

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting, over defense 

counsel’s objection, video footage taken from security cameras at Cordaro’s 

Restaurant. Preliminarily, we recognize that,

[t]he standard of review employed when faced with a challenge to 

the trial court’s decision as to whether or not to admit evidence is 

well settled. Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence 

lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing 

court will not reverse the trial court’s decision absent a clear abuse 

of discretion. Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. 
J-S07015-18

- 5 -

Super. 2005). Abuse of discretion is not merely an error of 

judgment, but rather where the judgment is manifestly 

unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record 

shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill 

will. Id.

Commonwealth v. Young, 989 A.2d 920, 924 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted).

At trial, Appellant’s counsel objected to the admission of the at-issue

video on the ground that it was not properly authenticated. See N.T. Trial, 

5/10/17, at 21. In response, the Commonwealth argued that Officer 

Rynearson’s testimony demonstrated that the video was “a truthful and 

accurate depiction of what had happened” and, thus, that testimony was 

sufficient to authenticate the video. Id. The trial court agreed, and overruled 

Appellant’s objection. 

We ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. Our 

Supreme Court has explained: 

As in the admission of any other evidence, a trial court may admit 

demonstrative evidence whose relevance outweighs any potential 

prejudicial effect. Commonwealth v. Reid, 571 Pa. 1, 811 A.2d 

530, 552 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 850, 124 S.Ct. 131, 157 

L.Ed.2d 92 (2003). The offering party must authenticate such 

evidence. “The requirement of authentication or identification as 

a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence 

sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what 

its proponent claims.” Pa.R.E. 901(a). Demonstrative evidence 

may be authenticated by testimony from a witness who has 

knowledge “that a matter is what it is claimed to be.” Pa.R.E. 

901(b)(1). Demonstrative evidence such as photographs, motion 

pictures, diagrams, and models have long been permitted to be 

entered into evidence provided that the demonstrative evidence 

fairly and accurately represents that which it purports to depict. 

See Nyce v. Muffley, 384 Pa. 107, 119 A.2d 530, 532 (1956).
J-S07015-18

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Serge, 896 A.2d 1170, 1177 (Pa. 2006).

In concluding that here, the Officer Rynearson’s testimony sufficiently 

authenticated the at-issue video evidence, the trial court reasoned:

Officer Rynearson offered a detailed account of how he 

followed [Appellant] by vehicle to the parking lot of Cordaro’s 

Restaurant and then pursued [Appellant] by foot towards the front 

of the [r]estaurant. The location of Cordaro’s Restaurant in 

relation to the crime scene was thoroughly identified by Officer 

Rynearson. Officer Rynearson further testified how he obtained 

[the] video footage of the entrance, [exit], and surrounding areas 

of Cordaro’s Restaurant on the date and time of the crime. 

According to Officer Rynearson, the video footage was a truthful 

and accurate depiction of what occurred within view of those 

cameras. Thus, the video footage was authenticated by the 

testimony of a witness with knowledge, in accordance with Pa.R.E. 

901(b)(1). 

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/8/17, at 2.

Our review of the record confirms that the trial court accurately 

summarizes Officer Rynearson’s testimony regarding the video surveillance 

footage, and we agree with the court that his testimony properly authenticated 

the video evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting that evidence over defense counsel’s objection. 

Accordingly, we agree with Attorney Burlein that the issue Appellant 

seeks to raise herein is frivolous. Additionally, our independent examination 

of the record reveals no other, non-frivolous issues that Appellant could raise 

on appeal. Therefore, we affirm his judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s 

petition to withdraw.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted. 
J-S07015-18

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/30/18