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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

Raymond 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 advocate’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 seeking 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 pro 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., directing 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 appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and 

affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are nonfrivolous 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. Finally, in counsel’s Anders brief, she did not explain why the 
J-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 and 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 complied 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 issue 

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 and 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.