J

- S15027

- 22

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

v.

MICHAEL ALLAN COCKERHAM

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 42 EDA 2022 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at CP

- 15

- CR

- 0002330

- 2020

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JUNE 7, 2022
Michael Allan Cockerham (Appellant) appeals from the judgm ent of sentence imposed after the trial court convicted him of simple assault and
harassment

. 1 Additionally, Appellant’s counsel (Counsel) has filed a n application to withdraw from representation and a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) , and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978
A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009)

. Upon review, we grant Counsel’ s application to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. On July 30, 2020, Appellant resided at the home of his mother, Mar jorie Cockerham (Ms. Cockerham), when Bryon Jones ( the Victim), a carpenter and friend of Ms. Cockerham, went to the h ome to measure a door and provide a

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 2709(a)(1).J

- S15027

- 22

- 2

-

repair estimate. N.T., 9/21/21, at 19

- 22. When t he Victim began moving Appellant’s possessions so he could measure the door , Appellant became agitated and belligerent, asking the Victim, “do you want to fight?” Id. at 23

- 24. Appellant then slammed a chair in front of the Victim, causing the Victim
to lose his balance and begin to fall

. Id. As the Victim attempted to get up, he became entangled with Appellant , who punched him in the eye

. Id. at 24

- 26. At the Victim’s request, Ms. Cockerham called police. Id. at 31. Officer Sanford Moran of the East Whiteland Township Police Department was dispatched to the hom e. Id. at 40 . Officer Moran observed the Victim’s swollen and red eye, and a small cut under the Victim’s right eyebrow. Id. at 42. Officer Moran did not see any injury to the Victim’s hands. Id. at 47. After speaking with the Victim outside the ho m e, Officer Mor an went inside
and located Appellant, who was agitated, out of breath, and sweating; Appellant’s knuckles were bandaged and both of his hands were bleeding. Id.
at 43. Appellant made several contradictory statements to Officer Moran about what happened

. Id. at 48, 54.
T he Commonwealth charged Appellant with simple assault and
harassment , and th e trial court hel d a bench trial on September 21, 2021.
The Victim testified for the Commonwealth. He recounted the events at Ms.
Cockerham’s home , and the trial court admitted into evidence photographs showing the Victim’s swollen, bruised eye and his unbruised hands. Id. at 28

-J

- S15027

- 22

- 3

-

29. The court also admitted photographs of Appellant’s hands which showed
cuts and fresh blood. Id. at 46

- 47. The Victim tes tified he sought medical
attention because he was “seeing stars,” and experienced vision problems for approximately one month after Appellant punched him

. Id. at 32. Appellant represented himself and testified i n his defense

. 2 He denied punchin g the Vic tim , and claimed that contrary to the Victim’s testimony , the
Victim had hit him. Id. at 29, 81. Appellant acknowledged he never told police that the Victim hit him

. Id. at 82. Appellant al so testified he did not
remember the incident and/or the incident was part of a plot between the
Victim and Ms. Cockerham to have Appellant jailed and/or evicted. Id. at 73

- 89.
T he trial court found Appellant guilty of simple assault and harassment

. On November 29, 2021, immediately prior to sentencing, Appellant requested
counsel , and the court order ed stand

- by counsel to represent Appellant

. 3 T he trial court sentenced Appellant to time

- served to 23 months in jail. Appellant did not file post

- senten ce motions. Th is appeal followed.
On January 18, 2021, in response to the trial court ’s order for a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise statement , Counsel submitted a statement of intent to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Appellant executed a written waiver of counsel in open court. See Waiver of Counsel Colloquy, 9/9/21, at 1

- 7. Attorney Susanna E. Dewese of the Chester County Public Defender’s Office served as stand

- by couns el.

3 The Chester County Public Defender’s Office continues to represent Appellant on appeal.J

- S15027

- 22

- 4

-

file an Anders brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4)

. T he trial court issued

an opinion stating that because of C ounsel’s intent to file an Anders brief, it

“ reviewed the record in this matter and [ f ound] no issue which would entitle Appellant to relief .” O pinion, 1/ 2 1/22

. On March 21 , 2022, Counsel filed an
Anders brief in this Court , asserting Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and requesting permission to withdraw from representation. On March 25, 2022 , Appellant file d a two

- page response raising 12 additional claims.
We first address Counsel’s applica tion to withdraw. See
Commonwealth v. Daniels , 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010) ( “W hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”)

. Before being permitted to withdraw pursuant to Anders , counsel must satisfy certain procedural and substantive requirements. Commonwealth v. Tejada , 176
A.3d 355, 358 (P a. Super. 2017). Procedurally, counsel must: (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) furnish a copy of the [ Anders ] b rief to the defendant; and (3) advise the defendant that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s attention

. Id. at 359 (citation omitted). Substantively, counsel must file an Anders brief, in which counsel: (1) provide [s] a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer [s] to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set [s] forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state [s]J

- S15027

- 22

- 5

-

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 ha ve led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Santiago , 978 A.2d at 361.
Counsel has complied with Anders ’ procedural and substantive requirements. Counsel states in her application to withdraw she found Appellant’s issue s to be frivolous after conducting a thorough review of the record. Appli cation to Withdraw as Counsel, 3/21 /22, at ¶ 1 . Counsel
attached to her application a copy of the letter she sent to Appellant, in which
Counsel advised Appellant he could retain private counsel or proceed pro se
. Id . at Ex. 3 ; see also Commonwealth v. Millisock , 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 20 05 ). Counsel also provid ed Appellant with a copy of the Anders
brief , which summarizes the facts and procedural history, include s issues that could arguably support Appellant’s appeal, and explain s Counsel’s assessment of why the issues are frivolous. Accordingly, we review the issues presented
in Counsel’s Anders brief and Appellant’s pro se response
. We also conduct

an independent review of the record to determine whether Appellant’s appeal
is in fact wholly frivolous. See Santiago , 978 A.2d at 358; see also
C ommonwealth v. Dempster , 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) ( en banc ) (“ part and parcel of Anders is our Court’s duty to review the record to insure no issues of arguable merit have been missed or misstated.”)

. Counsel ’s Anders b rief presents the following issues :J

- S15027

- 22

- 6

-

I. Was sufficient evidence presented to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doub t on the charge of simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1)?
II. Was sufficient evidence presented to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt on the charge of harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1)?
Anders Brief at 3 (capitalization omitted).
In his pro se response, Appellant raises the following issues: [I

. ] There is no audio or video or transcript from preliminary hearing at Magis terial [District Judge] William D. Kraut

. [II

. ] Magisterial [District Judge] Gil, July 30 th , 2020 , violated my constitutional right s in her illegal stipulation u pon posting of five thousand straight cash to not return to my abode. The “contractor ” [Victim] who at trial said he was not a contractor resides in the City o f Philadelphia , P a. Nowhere near 200 Summit Road Malvern , Pa. 19355. Twenty two days at hotels only to return to a. Burglarized apartment b. 911 takes hours and after submitting what O fficer M oran asked for c. Search warrant served on my burglarized apartment

— turns out [Victim] cut and stole my locks, my property, planted marijuana plants, took photographs, then lied in court that I hit him. [III

. ] [Magisterial District Judge] Gil violated [Appellant’s] constitutional rights stipulating [Appellant] may not return home t o 200 Summit Road leaving [him] homeless. [IV

. ] [Victim] stated at Kraut district court he was a “contractor” and did work at “residence” even stating measurements of sliding door. At trial he said his occupation is/was “carpenter” and instead of “flaili ng” which he stated at district he now said after his falling into me I cold cocked him. This is totally different from previous.J

- S15027

- 22

- 7

-

[V

. ] [ Ms. Cockerham ’s] statement and [Victim’s] statement are not similar. [VI

. ] Most IMPORTANTLY, [Appellant] was only le gal resident at 200 S u mmit Road at time of alleged incident. [ Ms. Cockerham ] left [Appellant] message 0900 and a lleged incident 1500 h ours. [Victim] says he struck [Appellant] first in trial. [Victim] assaulted [Appellant]! [VIII

. ] [Appellant] was in sc hool at time of alleged incident. H ome & s chool

. On

- line due to coronavirus

. [VIII

. ] Judge Carmody did not allow [Appellant] to introduce evidence including voicemail from [ Ms. Cockerham ] regarding arrival of unknown person later named [Victim] and illegitimate claims to be a victim. [IX

. ] Judge Carmody said dismissed with prejudice P.F.A. “ hurt ” me more than helped when it showed [Ms. Cockerham ’ s ] aggressive behavior, illegal/unbecoming behavior, threats to cut off electricity and water to [Appella nt’s] dwelling. [X

. ] Judge Patrick Carmody said on record he could only hold “jury trial for simple assault”. “Charge would have to be reduced (summary) for judge trial.” Judge trial was held[.] [XI

. ] Harassment and disorderly conduct di smissed as not in public and only one alleged o ccurrence so paperwork stating

“ merged ” is not acceptable! [XII

. ] No masks worn by either [M s. Cockerham ] or [Victim] upon entering residence. There were no vaccinations at this time. Attempted murder on part of [ Ms. Cockerham and Victim]

. Appellant’s Pro Se Response at 1

- 2 (unnumbered) ( reordered ).
In the Anders brief, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions for simple assault and harassment. Anders Brief
at 17

- 27 . We have explained: The determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of law; accordingly, our standard ofJ

- S15027

- 22

- 8

-

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. In assessing [a] sufficiency challenge, we must determi ne whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], there is sufficient evidence to enable the factfinder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [T]he facts and circumstances esta blished by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. ... [T]he finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
Commonw

ealth v. Edwards , 177 A.3d 963, 969

- 70 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted). An individual commits simple assault if he “attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 27 01(a)(1). The phrase “[b]odily injury” is defined as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. A person “ commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: strikes, shov es, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact , or attempts or threatens to do
the same [.]” 18 Pa.C.S. A. § 2709(a)(1)

. “An intent to harass may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Cox , 72 A.3d 719, 721 (Pa. Super

. 2013).
T he Victim testified that when he encountered Appellant, Appellant was agitated and asked him if he wanted to fight. See N.T., 9/21/21, at 19

- 32,
40

- 42. When the Victim refused, Appellant slammed a chair, causing the
Victim to lose his balance. As the Victim attempted to regain his balance, he became tangled with Appellant , who punched him in the eye. Police OfficerJ

- S15027

- 22

- 9

-

Moran observed the Victim’s eye , and the Commonwealth submitted photograph evidence of the injury

. See id. The Victim further testified to seeking medical attention and experiencing vis i on problems

. This evidence is sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions for simple
assault and harassment. See Commonwealth v. Jackson , 907 A.2d 540, 545 ( Pa. Super. 2006) ( evidence sufficient to sustain simple assault conviction
where arrestee , while attempting to flee, kicked and hit police officer , causing bruising, swelling, and soreness); Commonwealth v. Lutes , 793 A.2d 949, 961 ( Pa. Super. 2002) (evidence sufficient to sustain harassment conviction
where defendant blocked victim’s path, poked him in chest, and threatened to punch him). Thus, the issues in the Anders brief are merit less

. In the first three issue s of Appellant’s pro se response, he complains about the lack of transcript from his preliminary hearing and challenges the bail conditions imposed at his arraignment . O ur Supreme Court has held that once a defendant plead s guilty or is tried and convicted , he cannot establish prejudice relative to alleged errors at a preliminary hearing. See
Commonwealth v. Sanchez , 82 A.3d 943, 984 (Pa. 2013). Moreover, Appellant ’s claims are moot because he is serving his sentence and no longer subject to pretrial bail conditions

. See Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie , 812 A.2d 591, 599 ( Pa. 2002) ; c f. Commonwealth v. Sloan , 907 A.2d 460, 464

- 65 (Pa. 2006) (finding claim relating to imposition of bail conditions following release pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(E) mooted by appellant’s convictions ,J

- S15027

- 22

- 10

-

but deciding issue because it was “ of a recurring nature yet capable of repeatedly evading review, and involve [d] issues of important public
interest. ”)

. T he se first three issues lack merit and are frivolous. In his fourth through seventh issues, Appellant complains of a series of perceived discrepancies in the trial testimony , which he claims rendered the testimony not credible

. A challenge to credibility implicates the weight of the
evidence. See Commonwealth v. Griffin , 65 A.3d 932, 939 (Pa. Super. 2013); Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr. , 932 A.2d 155, 160 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim that jury should have belie ved appellant’s account , rather than that of
the victim , goes to weight, not sufficiency of evidence). T his C ourt cannot consider, in the first instance, a claim the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. See Commonwealth v. Wilson , 825 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2003). Because A ppellant did not file a post

- sentence motion challenging weight , the se issue s are not preserved for appellate review. See
Commonwealth v. Burkett , 830 A.2d 1034, 1036 (Pa. Super. 2003). In his eighth issue , Appellant challenge s the exclusion from trial of unspecified evidence and a voicemail from Ms. Cockerham. However, Appellant does not cite the record or indicate where he raised this issue with
the trial court . It is not this C ourt’s responsibility to c omb through the record seeking the factual underpinnings of Appellant’s claim. See C ommonwealth
v. Mulholland , 702 A.2d 1027, 1034 n.5 (Pa. Super. 1997)

. We are not obligated to act as Appellant’s counsel. “When issues are not properly raisedJ

- S15027

- 22

- 11

-

and develo ped in briefs . . . a Court will not consider the merits thereof.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 ( Pa. 1996). Appellant waived his eighth issue

. Appellant ’s remaining four issues consist of irrelevant and nonsensical allegations which lack any legal basis for relief. Therefore, they are waived.
See Commonwealth v. Bavusa , 832 A.2d 1042, 1052 (Pa. 2003) (reiterating that undeveloped claims are waived); and Commonwealth v. Williams

, 959 A.2d 1252, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2008 ) (waiver results when appellant fails to develop an issue or cite legal authority to support his claim ).
F inally , our independent review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious issues Appellant could raise on appeal. See D empster , 187 A.3d
at 272

. Accordingly, w e grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Application to withdraw from representation granted. Judgment of
sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2022