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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

sentence imposed after the trial court convicted him of simple assault and 

harassment.

1

 Additionally, Appellant’s counsel (Counsel) has filed an 

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, Marjorie 

Cockerham (Ms. Cockerham), when Bryon Jones (the Victim), a carpenter and 

friend of Ms. Cockerham, went to the home 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 the 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 home. 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 home, Officer Moran 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.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with simple assault and 

harassment, and the trial court held 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 testified 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 in his defense.

2

 He denied 

punching the Victim, 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 also 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.

The trial court found Appellant guilty of simple assault and harassment.

On November 29, 2021, immediately prior to sentencing, Appellant requested 

counsel, and the court ordered stand-by counsel to represent Appellant.

3

 The 

trial court sentenced Appellant to time-served to 23 months in jail. Appellant 

did not file post-sentence motions. This 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 counsel.

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). The trial court issued

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

“reviewed the record in this matter and [found] no issue which would entitle

Appellant to relief.” Opinion, 1/21/22. 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 filed a two-page response raising 12 additional claims.

We first address Counsel’s application to withdraw. See 

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“When 

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 (Pa. 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] brief 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 have 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 issues to be frivolous after conducting a thorough review of the 

record. Application 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. 2005). Counsel also provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders

brief, which summarizes the facts and procedural history, includes issues that 

could arguably support Appellant’s appeal, and explains 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 

Commonwealth 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 brief presents the following issues:
J-S15027-22

- 6 -

I. Was sufficient evidence presented to support a conviction 

beyond a reasonable doubt 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 Magisterial [District Judge] William D. Kraut.

[II.] Magisterial [District Judge] Gil, July 30th, 2020, violated my 

constitutional rights in her illegal stipulation upon 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 of Philadelphia, Pa. 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 

Officer Moran 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 

to 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 “flailing” 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 legal resident at 

200 Summit Road at time of alleged incident. [Ms. Cockerham] 

left [Appellant] message 0900 and alleged incident 1500 hours. 

[Victim] says he struck [Appellant] first in trial. [Victim] assaulted 

[Appellant]!

[VIII.] [Appellant] was in school at time of alleged incident. Home

& school. 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 [Appellant’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 dismissed as not in 

public and only one alleged occurrence so paperwork stating 

“merged” is not acceptable!

[XII.] No masks worn by either [Ms. 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 of 
J-S15027-22

- 8 -

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. In assessing 

[a] sufficiency challenge, we must determine 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 established 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. 

Commonwealth 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. § 2701(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, shoves, 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).

The 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 Officer 
J-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 vision 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 meritless.

In the first three issues 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. Our Supreme Court has held that 

once a defendant pleads 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); cf. 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.”). These 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 believed appellant’s account, rather than that of 

the victim, goes to weight, not sufficiency of evidence). This Court 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 Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion challenging 

weight, these issues are not preserved for appellate review. See 

Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034, 1036 (Pa. Super. 2003).

In his eighth issue, Appellant challenges 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 Court’s responsibility to comb through the record 

seeking the factual underpinnings of Appellant’s claim. See Commonwealth 

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 raised 
J-S15027-22

- 11 -

and developed 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).

Finally, our independent review of the record reveals no arguably 

meritorious issues Appellant could raise on appeal. See Dempster, 187 A.3d 

at 272. Accordingly, we 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