J-S80038-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL EDWARD SALKO, JR.

Appellant No. 1967 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 8, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-0002004-2015, CP-40-CR-0002972-2013, 

CP-40-CR-0003165-2013

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and RANSOM, J.

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 11, 2017

Appellant, Michael Edward Salko, Jr., appeals from the October 8, 

2015 judgment of sentence of twenty-four months of intermediate 

punishment and two years of probation. Appellant challenges the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel, 

Amanda M. Young, Esq., seeks to withdraw her representation of Appellant 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 87 S. Ct. 1936 (1967), and 

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We affirm and 

grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

On August 24, 2014, at criminal information No. 3165-2013, Appellant 

pleaded guilty to loitering and prowling at nighttime.1 On May 20, 2015, at 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 5506.
J-S80038-16

- 2 -

criminal information No. 2972-2013, Appellant pleaded guilty to receiving 

stolen property.2 On October 8, 2015, at criminal information No. 2004-

2015, Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while operating privilege was 

suspended or revoked.3

Appellant was sentenced on all three dockets on October 8, 2015. At 

criminal information No. 2972-2013, he was sentenced to twenty-four 

months of intermediate punishment. At criminal information No. 2004-2015, 

he was sentenced to one year of concurrent probation and one year of 

consecutive probation. At criminal information No. 3165-2013, Appellant 

was sentenced to one year of consecutive probation. Appellant’s sentences 

were within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. See Trial 

Court Opinion (TCO), 12/18/15, at 1.

Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement. In the statement, appellate counsel indicated her intention to file 

an Anders brief. The court issued a responsive opinion.

On August 12, 2016, appellate counsel filed in this Court an Anders

brief and application to withdraw as counsel. The brief sets forth the single 

issue Appellant seeks to raise on appeal, namely, that the imposition of a 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925.

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(1), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and 75 Pa.C.S. § 

1543(a).
J-S80038-16

- 3 -

twenty-four month IPP sentence followed by two years of probation and a 

$200 fine is harsh and excessive, where Appellant took responsibility by 

pleading guilty, obtained a job, and is re-involved in his children’s lives. 

Appellant’s Brief at 1.

When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review 

the merits of any possible underlying issues without first examining 

counsel’s request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 

287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc). Prior to withdrawing as counsel on 

direct appeal under Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the 

requirements established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Santiago, 

namely:

(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.” 
J-S80038-16

- 4 -

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, 879-880 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

After determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of 

Anders and Santiago, only then may this Court “conduct an independent 

review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non-frivolous 

issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 

1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and footnote omitted).

In the instant matter, Attorney Young’s Anders brief complies with the 

above-stated requirements. Namely, she includes a summary of the 

relevant factual and procedural history, she refers to the portions of the 

record that could arguably support Appellant’s claims, and she sets forth her 

conclusion that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. She explains her reasoning 

and supports her rationale with citations to the record as well as pertinent 

legal authority. Attorney Young avers she has supplied Appellant with a 

copy of her Anders brief and a letter explaining the rights enumerated in 

Nischan.

4

 Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical 

requirements for withdrawal. Thus, we may independently review the record 

to determine if the issues Appellant raises are frivolous and to ascertain if 

there are other non-frivolous issues he may pursue on appeal.

____________________________________________

4 Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief.
J-S80038-16

- 5 -

Appellant’s issue challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Appellant argues that the sentence is excessive because he took 

responsibility by pleading guilty, admitted his drug and alcohol problem, and 

has become re-involved in his children’s lives. Appellant’s Brief at 4.

A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be 

considered a petition for permission to appeal. See Commonwealth v. 

Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135, 142 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(f). This Court conducts a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

Appellant has timely filed a notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was 

properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence; (3) whether Appellant’s brief has a fatal defect; and (4) whether 

there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). 

Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation 

omitted). 

Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal. However, Appellant did 

not preserve his challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence at 

sentencing, or in a motion to reconsider. This alone would be fatal to his 

appeal. Additionally, Appellant has not raised a substantial question. See 

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[A]n 

allegation that the sentencing court did not consider certain mitigating 

factors does not raise a substantial question.”); see also Commonwealth 

v. Brown, 741 A.2d 726, 735 (“[A] claim of excessiveness of sentence does 
J-S80038-16

- 6 -

not raise a substantial question where the sentence is within the statutory 

limits.”).

In short, we agree with Attorney Young that Appellant’s issue is 

frivolous. We have independently reviewed the record, and find no other 

issues of arguable merit that he could pursue on appeal. Accordingly, we 

affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to 

withdraw.

Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/11/2017