J-S31041-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEFFERY COFFER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 52 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001899-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEFFERY COFFER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 53 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001900-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEFFERY ALAN COFFER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 54 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001280-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
J-S31041-19

- 2 -

v.

JEFFERY ALAN COFFER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 55 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 20, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001386-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEFFERY ALAN COFFER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 56 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-26-CR-0001466-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2019

Jeffery Alan Coffer appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on

September 12, 2017, following his guilty plea to numerous charges in five

separate cases.1 He received an aggregate sentence of six to twelve years of ____________________________________________

1 Specifically, Coffer pled guilty to the following: Possession of a Controlled

Substance (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16)), Possession of Paraphernalia (35 P.S.

§ 780-113(a)(32)), Robbery-Threat of Serious Bodily Injury (18 Pa.C.S.A. §

3701(a)(1)(ii)), Terroristic Threats (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1)), Theft by

Unlawful Taking (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a)), Receiving Stolen Property (18 Pa.

C.S.A. § 3925(a)), Recklessly Endangering Another Person (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
J-S31041-19

- 3 -

incarceration for the charges in all five cases. Coffer’s counsel has filed an

Anders2 brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel. We conclude that counsel

has failed to comply with the requirements of Anders and Santiago. Therefore, we deny the petition to withdraw and remand for counsel to file

either a brief that satisfies all of the Anders/Santiago requirements or an

advocate’s brief.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal at this time because counsel

has not met the requirements pursuant to Anders. See Commonwealth v.

Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (stating that “[w]hen faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the

merits of any possible underlying issues without first examining counsel’s

request to withdraw”).

In an Anders brief, counsel seeking to withdraw 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. ____________________________________________ 2705), Theft by Deception (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(3)), Forgery (18

Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(2)), Access Device Fraud (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(3)), and Receives Advance Payment for Services (73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(2)). Trial

Court Opinion, filed on March 11, 2019, at 1-2. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v.

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
J-S31041-19

- 4 -

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361 (emphasis added). The Santiago Court held that

“a discussion of counsel’s reasons for believing that the client’s appeal is

frivolous is mandatory and must be included in counsel’s brief.” Id. at 360.

Here, although Coffer’s counsel provided a summary of the procedural

facts and history of the case and presented two issues that he said arguably

supports the appeal, Coffer’s counsel did not state his reasons for concluding

that Coffer’s appeal is frivolous. Instead, counsel stated, in a conclusory

fashion and without any explanation, that the issues are meritless.

Specifically, counsel simply stated in his Anders brief:

After a thorough review and conscientious examination of

the record, consisting of a review of the official file, a reading

of the Notice of Appeal, research and review of the

applicable case law and statutes, the Petitioner has

determined that the Appellant’s Appeal is wholly frivolous.

Anders Br. at 24.

This Court has stated that the requirements for Anders briefs are

“stringent, and with good reason.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d

877, 881 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted). Indeed, a defendant has a

constitutional right to a direct appeal and a constitutional right to competent

counsel for his or her direct appeal. Id.

Our Supreme Court in Santiago explained why it is important for

counsel to articulate his or her reasons for concluding that an appeal is

frivolous:

We are persuaded that requiring counsel to articulate the

basis for his or her conclusion of frivolity will advance the
J-S31041-19

- 5 -

twin functions counsel’s Anders brief is to serve, i.e., it will

assist the intermediate appellate courts in determining

whether counsel has conducted a thorough and diligent

review of the case to discover appealable issues and

whether the appeal is indeed frivolous. In this context, we

believe that there is real value in putting pen to paper. As

the United States Supreme Court has noted, the task of

articulating reasons can shed new light on what may at first

appear to be an open-and-shut issue. It can also reveal to

counsel previously unrecognized aspects of the record or the

law and thereby provide a safeguard against a hastily-drawn

or mistaken conclusion of frivolity. In addition, we believe

that it is often the case that the basis for an attorney’s

opinion that an appeal is frivolous is not readily apparent, and that accordingly, counsel’s explanation will significantly

assist the courts in passing upon the soundness of counsel’s

conclusion, which, in turn, vindicates the right to counsel.

Id. at 360-61 (citations omitted). Instantly, since counsel did not set forth his reasons for concluding that

the appeal is frivolous, we conclude that his brief does not substantially comply

with the requirements of Anders and Santiago. Accordingly, we deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw, without prejudice, and remand for counsel to

file either a brief that satisfies all of the Anders/Santiago requirements or

an advocate’s brief, within sixty days of the date of this memorandum.

Petition to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded with direction

that counsel file either a fully compliant Anders/Santiago brief, or an

advocate’s brief, within sixty days of the date of this memorandum. Panel

jurisdiction retained.