J

- S50005

- 16

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.

GREGORY B. BARTUCCI
Appellant No. 1686 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 8, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP

- 36

- CR

- 0001286

- 2014

BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE , and FITZGERALD, * JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JUNE 29, 2016
Appellant, Gregory B. Bartucci, appeals from the judgment of sentence
made final by the September 1, 2015 order, which vacated the sentence
imposed on count 2, theft by deception, entered in the Lancaster County
Court of Common Pleas. Ap pellant’s appellate counsel, MaryJean Glick,
Esquire, has filed a petition to withdraw representation pursuant to Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). We remand with instructions.
Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of theft by unlawful
taking, 1 theft by deception, 2 and forgery. 3 On July 8, 2015, Appellant was

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1).J

- S50005

- 16

- 2

-

sentenced to 27 months to 7 years’ imprisonment for theft by unlawful
taking, 27 months to 7 years’ imprisonment for th eft by deception and 12
months to 7 years’ imprisonment for forgery. N.T., 7/8/15, at 16. The

sentences were concurrent. Id. at 24. Appellant filed post

- sentence motions. On September 1, 2015, the court granted Appellant’s motion in
part, finding that theft by deception merged with theft by unlawful taking.
This timely appeal followed.
As a prefatory matter, we must examine whether counsel complied
with the requirements of Anders / McClendon as clarified by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealt h v. Santiago , 978 A.2d
349 (Pa. 2009).

[W]e hold that in the Anders brief that accompanies court

- appointed counsel’s petition to withdraw, counsel must: (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer t o 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 relev ant facts of record, controlling case law , and / or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous

. Id. at 361 (emphasis added).

If this Court determines that appointed counsel has met these obligations, it is then our respo nsibility “to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(2).J

- S50005

- 16

- 3

- fact wholly frivolous.” In so doing, we review not only the issues identified by appointed counsel in the Anders brief, but examin e all of the proceedings to “make certain that appointed counsel has not overlooked the existence of potentially non

- frivolous issues.”

Commonwealth v. Hankerson , 118 A.3d 415, 420 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(citations omitted).

Counsel raised numerous issues on appeal. In some of the issues,
counsel did not articulate any controlling case law or statutes on point that
led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. We remand for counsel to
comply with Santiago . Upon further review, if counsel finds a nonf rivolous
issue, an advocate’s brief may be filed.
We direct the Prothonotary to enter a new briefing schedule.
Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.