J. S36042/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JOSEPH BEATTY, : No. 659 EDA 2016

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 26, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0004022-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2018

Joseph Beatty appeals from the January 26, 2016 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

following his conviction in a bench trial of aggravated assault and terroristic 

threats.1 The trial court sentenced appellant to 4 years and 6 months to 

12 years of incarceration, followed by 3 years of probation, on the 

aggravated assault conviction; and a concurrent 1 year of probation on the 

terroristic threats conviction. Shawn K. Page, Esq., has filed an Anders

brief,2 with an accompanying petition, alleging that the appeal is frivolous 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1) and 2706(a)(1), respectively.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. 

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 

434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981).
J. S36042/17

- 2 -

and including a request to withdraw. After careful review, we grant 

counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

We previously set forth the following:

The record reflects that appellant’s convictions 

stemmed from an incident that occurred on 

February 26, 2015. That evening, the victim, who 

was then “Islamically [sic] married” to appellant, was 

speaking on the phone with a male friend when 

appellant became “irate saying this [is] his house, 

[the victim is] his wife, nobody’s coming in here.” 

(Notes of testimony, 11/18/15 at 6, 10, 11.) As the 

victim sat on a bed, appellant took the pillow off of 

the bed, got on top of the victim, placed the pillow 

over the victim’s face, and called her “about a 

hundred and one bitches.” (Id. at 12-13.) Appellant 

then began choking the victim with one hand and 

striking her with the other. (Id. at 13.) While he 

did so, appellant told the victim that “if he can’t have 

[her], no one else will.” (Id. at 35.) The victim 

testified that she believes that appellant also kicked 

her repeatedly, but that everything became a blur 

and that she was not certain as to whether she 

passed out, but that she does remember the police 

arriving, putting her in an ambulance, and taking her 

to the hospital. (Id. at 15-16.) The record reflects 

that at some point during this ordeal, the victim was 

able to call 911. (Id. at 29-30.)

At trial, the parties stipulated that the victim 

was “intubated, underwent a multitude of x-rays and 

CAT scans,” and that her injuries included “closed 

head trauma, facial lacerations and hemorrhaging, 

left maxillary/periorbital area,” “upper jaw, face and 

eye swelling and hematoma, right mandibular and 

maxillary swelling and hematoma,” and “left nasal 

bone fracture.” (Id. at 63.) As a result of these 

injuries, the victim was hospitalized for five days. 

(Id.)

The record further reflects that following 

sentencing, appellant filed a timely motion for 
J. S36042/17

- 3 -

reconsideration of judgment of sentence. On

February 9, 2016, the trial court denied the motion. 

The trial court provided the following 

procedural history, as follows:

[Appellant] filed a notice of appeal on 

February 29, 2016. On March 2, 2016, 

the court issued an order pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (“1925(b) order” or 

“the order”) directing [appellant] to file a 

Concise Statement of Errors Complained 

of on Appeal (“Statement”) no later than 

twenty-one days from the order’s date. 

On March 10, 2016, defense counsel filed 

a motion to withdraw as counsel with the 

trial court. Defense counsel was directed 

to file the motion with the Superior 

Court. On March 22, 2016, defense 

counsel filed a motion to withdraw with 

the Superior Court. On April 19, 2016, 

the Superior Court ordered the trial court

to decide defense counsel’s March 10th

motion to withdraw as counsel without 

delay. On April 25, 2016, the trial court 

denied defense counsel’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel. [Appellant] failed 

to file a Statement by March 23, 2016, 

pursuant to the court’s March 2, 2016 

order. Nor did [appellant] file a motion 

for extension of time during this period. 

To date, no such statement has been 

filed.

Trial court opinion, 6/30/16 at 1-2 (footnotes 

omitted).

The record further reflects that the trial court 

filed an opinion on June 30, 2016, wherein it 

concluded that appellant waived all issues on appeal 

for failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). (Id. at 

2.) On December 14, 2016, Attorney Page filed in 

this court an Anders brief, without an accompanying 

petition, wherein counsel states that, after a 
J. S36042/17

- 4 -

conscientious review of the record, he determined 

that an appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Commonwealth v. Beatty, No. 659 EDA 2016, unpublished memorandum 

at *2-4 (Pa.Super. filed June 14, 2017) (brackets in original).

Although Attorney Page never filed a notice of intent to file an Anders

brief with the trial court,3 we excused this procedural misstep and reviewed 

his request to withdraw. Our review revealed that Attorney Page’s Anders

brief failed to comply with the technical requirements related to withdrawal 

of representation. As such, we remanded with instructions. See id. In 

accordance with our remand instructions, on July 14, 2017, Attorney Page 

filed an Anders brief, together with a petition to withdraw. We will, 

therefore, review Attorney Page’s July 14, 2017 request to withdraw.

To withdraw under Anders, court-appointed counsel must satisfy 

certain technical requirements. First, counsel must “petition the court for 

 

3 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) provides that:

In a criminal case, counsel may file of record and 

serve on the judge a statement of intent to file an 

Anders/McClendon brief in lieu of filing a 

Statement. If, upon review of the 

Anders/McClendon brief, the appellate court 

believes that there are arguably meritorious issues 

for review, those issues will not be waived; instead, 

the appellate court may remand for the filing of a 

Statement, a supplemental opinion pursuant to 

Rule 1925(a), or both. Upon remand, the trial court 

may, but is not required to, replace appellant’s 

counsel.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). 
J. S36042/17

- 5 -

leave to withdraw and state that after making a conscientious examination 

of the record, he has determined that the appeal is frivolous.” 

Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940, 947 (Pa.Super. 2012), 

quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Second, counsel must file an Anders

brief, in which counsel:

(1) provide[s] a summary of the procedural history 

and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer[s] to 

anything in the record that counsel believes arguably 

supports the appeal; (3) set[s] forth counsel’s 

conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and 

(4) state[s] 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.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. With respect to the briefing requirements, 

“[n]either Anders nor McClendon requires that counsel’s brief provide an 

argument of any sort, let alone the type of argument that counsel develops 

in a merits brief. To repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are 

references to anything in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Finally, counsel must furnish a 

copy of the Anders brief to his client and “advise[] him of his right to retain 

new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points that he deems 

worthy of the court’s attention, and attach [] to the Anders petition a copy 

of the letter sent to the client.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 

594 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted). “[If] counsel has satisfied the 

above requirements, it is then this Court’s duty to conduct its own review of 
J. S36042/17

- 6 -

the trial court’s proceedings and render an independent judgment as to 

whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v. 

Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 291 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (quotation marks 

and quotation omitted).

Here, counsel’s Anders brief substantially complies with prevailing 

law. Attorney Page has provided a procedural and factual summary of the 

case with references to the record. (Anders brief at 3-4.) Attorney Page 

refers to portions of the record that arguably support the appeal. (Id. at 

unnumbered pages 8-9.) Attorney Page concludes that “after making a 

conscientious examination of the record[,] he has determined the appeal 

would be wholly frivolous” and includes his reasons for that determination.

(Id.) Additionally, Attorney Page’s correspondence to appellant provided 

appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and advised him of his right to 

either retain new counsel or to proceed pro se on appeal to raise any points 

he deems worthy of the court’s attention. We note that our June 14, 2017 

remand order provided appellant with 30 days to respond to Attorney Page’s 

petition to withdraw and Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response.4 

As such, Attorney Page has substantially complied with the procedural 

requirements of Anders. We, therefore, proceed to conduct an independent 

review to ascertain whether the appeal is indeed wholly frivolous.

 

4 We also note that despite being granted two extensions of time to file its 

brief, the Commonwealth failed to file a brief by the second due date, which 

was November 27, 2017.
J. S36042/17

- 7 -

Counsel raises the following issue in the Anders brief: “Are there any 

non-frivolous issues preserved for appeal?” (Id. at 2.) Counsel then sets 

forth conflicting trial testimony elicited from the victim and appellant, 

including appellant’s testimony in support of self-defense. (Id. at 

unnumbered pages 4-5, 9.) Counsel then concludes that the appeal is 

frivolous because the trial court, as fact-finder in appellant’s waiver trial, had 

the duty to determine the credibility of the testimony and evidence 

presented at trial and, as such, resolved the conflicting testimony in the 

victim’s favor. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 544

(Pa.Super. 2013) (reiterating that the fact-finder passes upon the weight 

and credibility of witness testimony and is free to believe all, part, or none of 

the evidence). Although counsel advances no argument in the Anders brief

with respect to this credibility issue, we reiterate that neither Anders nor 

McClendon requires counsel to set forth an argument; rather, Anders

requires counsel to provide references to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal. Santiago, 978 A.2d at 364. Counsel has 

done so. After carefully reviewing the trial transcript, we conclude that it 

supports counsel’s assessment that because appellant’s convictions resulted 

from the fact-finder’s credibility determinations which were resolved against 

appellant, this appeal is wholly frivolous.
J. S36042/17

- 8 -

Finally, our independent review of the entire record reveals no 

additional non-frivolous claims. Therefore, we grant counsel’s petition to 

withdraw and affirm appellant’s January 26, 2016, judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/31/18