J-S50005-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 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. Appellant’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,1theft by deception,2and 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 theft 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 Commonwealth 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 to 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 

relevant 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 responsibility “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 examine 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 nonfrivolous 

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.