J

- S22032

- 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. RAYMOND ANTHONY GATES, JR.,

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1716 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Ente red September 9, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP

- 25

- CR

- 0001282

- 2014

and CP

- 25

- CR

- 0002225

- 2010 BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2015 Raymo nd Anthony Gates, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after the revocation of his probation/parole and his sentence imposed after pleading guilty to theft by unlawful taking. Counsel for Appellant has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). On June 3, 2015, this panel remanded the case, directing counsel either to comply with the requirements of Anders or to file an advoca te’s brief. Upon review of counsel’s new petition to withdraw and brief, we again remand this case with instructions. We remind counsel of our standards for reviewing a case that includes a petition to withdraw and Anders brief.J

- S22032

- 15

- 2

-

Direct appeal counsel see king 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 pr o 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. , directi ng 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 ap peal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are non

frivolous 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 three deficiencies in counsel’s petition and Anders brief. In her petition to withdraw, counsel purported to review challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, which are challenges not reviewable in this probation revocation case. Additionally, the certificate of service on the petition was faulty in that it listed an individual other than Appellant as recipient. Fina lly, in counsel’s Anders brief, she did not explain why theJ

- S22032

- 15

- 3

-

issue she preserved in her post

- sentence motion was frivolous; rather, she explained why an issue she did not preserve for review was frivolous. Accordingly, we denied the petition to withdraw an d remanded the case for counsel either to comply with Anders or file an advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf. On June 24, 2015, counsel filed a new petition to withdraw and Anders brief. In her new petition to withdraw, the certificate of service does not list Appellant, or any inmate, as having received it. However, counsel did write a letter to Appellant, in which she states that she enclosed a copy of the petition and Anders brief with the letter to him. Thus, we are satisfied that counsel has comp lied with her notice requirements. However, we are still concerned with counsel’s “new” Anders brief. The “new” brief is the exact same brief counsel filed previously. Despite the fact this Court specifically pointed out a concern with respect to the is sue raised by counsel, counsel made no changes to the brief. Notably, counsel has still not explained why the issue she raised her in post

- sentence motion regarding credit for time served is frivolous. Thus, we once again “ deny the petition to withdraw a nd 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 .J

- S22032

- 15

- 4

-

Petition to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.