J-S47045-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEROMEY CARRILLO,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 725 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0004957-2018

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 16, 2019

Jeromey Carrillo (“Carrillo”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered following his negotiated guilty plea to persons not to possess, use, 

manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms (“persons not to possess”).

1

 

Catherine J. Nadirov, Esquire, counsel for Carrillo (“Counsel”), has filed a 

Petition to Withdraw from representation and a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We grant Counsel’s Petition to Withdraw, and affirm 

Carrillo’s judgment of sentence.

On October 25, 2018, Carrillo was arrested following a search of his 

residence, during which a handgun was found in his bedroom. Carrillo was on 

probation for an unrelated offense at the time. On April 11, 2019, Carrillo 

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
J-S47045-19

- 2 -

entered a guilty plea to one count of persons not to possess. On the same 

day, the trial court sentenced Carrillo to a prison term of 30 to 120 months. 

On April 30, 2019, Carrillo timely filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court. The 

trial court subsequently entered an Order directing Carrillo to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement.2 In response, Counsel filed a Statement 

indicating her intention to file an Anders brief in lieu of filing a concise 

statement. On May 23, 2019, the trial court filed a Statement in Lieu of 

Opinion requesting that Carrillo’s appeal be denied because no meritorious 

issues exist for direct appeal.

In the Anders Brief, Counsel presents the following issues for our 

review:

1. Did the trial court err in denying the post sentence motion 

to withdraw the guilty plea, when a Gagnon II3 hearing had not 

been scheduled?

2. Was trial counsel ineffective at the guilty plea and 

sentencing hearing[,] and by failing to file post sentence motions?

____________________________________________

2 On May 21, 2019, Carrillo filed a pro se “Ordered Statement” arguing that, 

though he is not retracting his guilty plea, his sentence should be modified. 

On May 23, 2019, the trial court entered an Order dismissing Carrillo’s 

“Ordered Statement” on the basis that he was already represented by 

Counsel.

3 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (“Gagnon II”).
J-S47045-19

- 3 -

Anders Brief at 4.

4

We may not address the merits of the issues Carrillo raises on appeal 

without first reviewing Counsel’s request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. 

Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005).

Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal 

under Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets 

the requirements established by our Supreme Court 

in Santiago. The 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 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. 

Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief 

to [her] client. Attending the brief must be a letter 

that advises the client of his right to[] “(1) retain new 

counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on 

appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant 

deems worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to 

the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” 

Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa.

Super. 2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 704, 936 A.2d 

40 (2007).

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(paragraph breaks omitted). Substantial compliance with the Anders

____________________________________________

4 We observe that Counsel does not address his first claim in the Argument 

section of the Anders Brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (detailing the 

requirements for the Argument section of an appellate brief). Accordingly, 

this claim is waived. Nevertheless, we note that the instant appeal does not 

lie from a revocation of Carrillo’s probation, but, rather, from a separate, 

unrelated criminal offense.
J-S47045-19

- 4 -

requirements is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 

(Pa. Super. 2007). After determining that Counsel has satisfied the technical 

requirements of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a 

simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be 

arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or 

misstated.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 

2018).

Here, Counsel’s Petition to Withdraw states that she has reviewed the 

record and concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Additionally, Counsel 

notified Carrillo, via letter dated June 19, 2019, that she was seeking 

permission to withdraw, furnished Carrillo with copies of the Petition to 

Withdraw and Anders brief, and advised Carrillo of his right to retain new 

counsel or proceed pro se to raise any points he believes worthy of this Court’s 

attention. Further, Counsel’s brief substantially complies with the technical 

dictates in Santiago. Accordingly, we next must conduct a review of the 

issues raised by Carrillo, and of the record, to ensure that no issues of 

arguable merit have been missed or misstated. See Dempster, 187 A.3d at 

272.

Carrillo claims that the trial court improperly sentenced him following 

his guilty plea. Anders Brief at 7. Alternatively, Carrillo argues that his guilty 

plea should be withdrawn because his prior record score was incorrect; he did 

not undergo a revocation hearing pursuant to Gagnon II; and he was given 
J-S47045-19

- 5 -

an unreasonably high tail on his 120 month maximum sentence. Anders Brief 

at 7.

5

 

Generally, a guilty plea amounts to a waiver of all defects and defenses 

except those concerning jurisdiction of court, legality of sentence, and validity 

of a guilty plea. Commonwealth v. Moyer, 444 A.2d 101, 102 (Pa. 1982). 

A trial court’s decision to accept a guilty plea should not be upset absent an 

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Prysock, 972 A.2d 539, 541 (Pa. 

Super. 2009). An abuse of discretion exists when a defendant shows any fair 

and just reason for withdrawing the plea, absent substantial prejudice to the 

Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Anthony, 475 A.2d 1303, 1308 (Pa. 

1984). A defendant may only withdraw his guilty plea where necessary to 

correct “manifest injustice,” defined as a plea that is not tendered knowingly, 

intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. Commonwealth v. Hart, 174 

A.3d 660, 664-65 (Pa. Super. 2017). The defendant bears the burden of 

proving otherwise. Id. at 665.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Carrillo was sentenced to a term of 30 to 

120 months (two and a half to ten years) in prison for the crime of persons 

____________________________________________

5 Although the Statement of Questions Involved characterizes this claim as a 

challenge to plea counsel’s effectiveness, the Argument section does not 

include a discussion of the law relevant to such challenge. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2116(a) (detailing the requirements for the Statement of Questions Involved

section of an appellate brief). Additionally, ineffectiveness claims generally 

may not be raised until collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 

978 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. 2009).
J-S47045-19

- 6 -

not to possess. Carrillo does not challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction. 

Because Carrillo was disqualified from possessing a firearm due to a prior 

conviction, the offense was properly graded as a felony of the second degree, 

which carried a maximum permissible sentence of ten years in prison.6 As a 

result, the trial court’s imposed sentence fell within the statutory guidelines 

and Carrillo’s claim of an illegal sentence fails.

Carrillo was informed at the time of his sentencing that he retained the 

right to challenge the validity of his plea, the effectiveness of his counsel, the 

trial court’s jurisdiction, and the sentence imposed upon him. See N.T., 

4/11/19, at 3. The record plainly shows that Carrillo knowingly, intentionally, 

and voluntarily entered his guilty plea; the prosecution fully complied with the 

terms of the plea agreement; and the trial court’s sentence of 30 to 120 

months in prison was in accordance with the agreement. See id.; see also

Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, 4/11/19. We also note that the sentence Carrillo 

received was on the low end of the standard range. Moreover, to the extent 

that Carrillo challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, “[o]ne who 

pleads guilty and receives a negotiated sentence may not then seek 

discretionary review of that sentence.” Commonwealth v. O’Malley, 957 

A.2d 1265, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, we do not find any abuse of 

discretion by the trial court.

____________________________________________

6 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(2).
J-S47045-19

- 7 -

Finally, our independent review of the record discloses no other 

“arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or 

misstated.” Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272. As such, we grant Counsel’s Petition 

to Withdraw, and affirm the judgment of sentence.

Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/16/2019