J

- S38034

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DAVID M. SEITZER , : : Appellant : No. 2018 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on October 28, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Criminal Division, No. CP

- 41

- CR

- 0000882

- 2013 BEFORE: WECHT, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J. : FILED JULY 17, 2015 David M. Seitzer (“Seitzer”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his co nviction of criminal mischief. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(5). Additionally, Kirsten A. Gardner, Esquire (“Gardner”), Seitzer’s counsel, has filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We grant Gardner’s Petition to Withdraw and affirm Seitzer’s judgment of sentence. On May 14, 2013, Seitzer was charged with one count of criminal mischief for damaging a rental property owned by his brother, George Seitzer (“George”). Seitz er lived on the property without permission and was eventually evicted. Thereafter, George discovered extensive damage to the property. In a letter to George, Seitzer admitted to damaging theJ

- S38034

- 15

- 2

-

property out of emotional pain. Darlene Moretz (“Moretz”), an insurance adjuster for Erie Insurance Group (“Erie”), investigated the damages and determined that they were the result of vandalism. Moretz estimated that the damages totaled $3,323.79. The case proceeded to a non

- jury trial, after which Seitzer was found guilty of criminal mischief. On October 28, 2014, the trial court sentenced Seitzer to two years of probation and seventy

- five hours of community service. The trial court also ordered Seitzer to pay restitution to Erie in the amount of $2,823.79, a nd to George in the amount of $500.00. 1 Seitzer filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Seitzer’s counsel, Gardner, has filed an Anders Brief raising the following question: “Whether the lower court erred [by determining] that there was sufficient evidence pre sented at trial to sustain a verdict of guilt as to the charge of criminal mischief?” Anders Brief at 4. Gardner filed a separate Petition to Withdraw with this Court on March 26, 2015. Seitzer filed neither a pro se brief, nor retained alternate counse l for this appeal. We must first determine whether Gardner has complied with the dictates of Anders in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See Commonwealth v. Goodwin , 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that “[w]hen faced with a purport ed Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of any possible underlying issues without first

1 George had a $500.00 deductible under his insurance policy with Erie.J

- S38034

- 15

- 3

-

examining counsel’s request to withdraw.”) (citation omitted). Pursuant to Anders , when an attorney believes an appeal is frivolous and wishes to withdra w as counsel, he or she must (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to any issues that might arguabl y support the appeal, but which does not resemble a no

- merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se , or raise any additional points he deems worthy of this Court’s atte ntion. Commonwealth v. Burwell , 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that a
proper Anders brief 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 s hould 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. Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Here, Gardner has complied with each of th e requirements of Anders and Santiago . Gardner indicates that she conscientiously examined the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous. Further, Gardner’s brief meets the standards set forth in Santiago by providing a factual summation of Seitzer’s case, with support for her conclusion that sufficientJ

- S38034

- 15

- 4

-

evidence was presented at trial to prove criminal mischief, rendering Seitzer’s appeal wholly frivolous. Finally, Gardner provided a copy of her letter to Seitzer informing him of her intent ion to withdraw as counsel and advising him of his rights to retain new counsel, proceed pro se , and file additional claims. Because Gardner has complied with the procedural requirements for withdrawing from representation, we must next conduct an indepen dent review and determine whether Seitzer’s appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Seitzer contends that the trial court erred in determining that there was sufficient evidence presented to sustain a guilty verdict for criminal mischief. Anders Brief at 8

- 9. Our standard of review challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is as follows: [W]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner. In that light, we decide if the evidence and all reasonable inferences fr om that evidence are sufficient to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We keep in mind that it was for the trier of fact to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The [fact

- finder] was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. This Court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment [f]or that of the fact[

- ]finder. Commonwealth v. West , 937 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). A “person is guilty of crim inal mischief if he intentionally damages real or personal property of another.” See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(5). Here, theJ

- S38034

- 15

- 5

-

evidence indicated that George’s property was damaged while Seitzer was residing there. N.T., 9/25/14, at 7

- 8. Seitzer also admitt ed to damaging the property in a letter to George. Id . at 9

- 10. Furthermore, the insurance adjuster, Moretz, confirmed that the damage was intentional and not the result of ordinary use. Id . at 25. Thus, based on the evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Seitzer’s criminal mischief
conviction. See Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 499 (Pa. Super. 2005) (concluding that evidence was sufficient to supp ort criminal mischief conviction where the defendant intentionally punched a vehicle, resulting in specified damages). Further, upon our independent review, we conclude that Seitzer’s appeal is wholly frivolous, and grant Gardner leave to withdraw as coun sel. Petition to Withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/17/2015