J-S38038-18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

MEGAN V. JEWELL,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 109 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 5, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-61-CR-0000312-2014

 CP-61-CR-0000353-2017

 CP-61-CR-0000366-2017

 CP-61-CR-0000387-2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2019

Megan V. Jewell (Appellant) appeals from the January 5, 2018 

judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 32 to 64 months’ 

incarceration following the revocation of her probation and after pleading 

guilty to two counts each of retail theft and aggravated assault. 

Due to our disposition herein, we need not provide a detailed factual 

summary. We do, however, set forth the relevant procedural history of this 

matter. On January 5, 2018, Appellant was sentenced to the 

aforementioned term of incarceration. Appellant did not file a post-sentence 

motion, but on January 16, 2018, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. 

That same day, the trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a 
J-S38038-18

- 2 -

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(1). No statement was filed. On March 20, 2018, the trial court 

filed an opinion stating that Appellant’s failure to file a concise statement 

constituted waiver of all issues on appeal. Opinion of Court, 3/20/2018, at 

1-2.

In this Court, counsel for Appellant, Matthew C. Parsons, Esquire, filed 

both an Anders1 brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel. Upon review, 

this Court, in a memorandum filed August 27, 2018, determined that 

Attorney Parsons did not comply with the requirements of Anders.

2

Specifically, our review of the certified record revealed the absence of a 

written guilty plea colloquy, as well as the transcripts of Appellant’s guilty 

plea and Gagnon II hearing. Additionally, Attorney Parsons failed to cite to 

 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme 

Court has expounded upon the requirements of Anders.

[I]n 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.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.
J-S38038-18

- 3 -

any pertinent transcript within his brief. Due to these deficiencies, we 

denied Attorney Parsons’s petition to withdraw and remanded this case. We 

instructed Attorney Parsons to complete the record and then “file either an 

advocate’s brief or a new petition to withdraw and Anders brief that fully 

comply with the requirements detailed above.” Commonwealth v. Jewell, 

195 A.3d 1033, *3 (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished memorandum).

Several months later, this case returned to this Court following 

remand. A review of the record reflected that, per our request, the certified 

record had been supplemented. However, we ultimately determined that 

Attorney Parsons failed to comply with this Court’s directives. Specifically, 

Attorney Parsons filed the same Anders brief previously filed with this 

Court, which we had already determined to be inadequate. Thus, we 

remanded this case once again and directed Attorney Parsons to file either

an advocate’s brief or a compliant Anders brief, and to comply with all of

this Court’s directives. Commonwealth v. Jewell, ___A.2d___, 2019 WL 

1307452, *2 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum). 

Instead of filing either an advocate’s brief or compliant Anders brief, 

on April 8, 2019, Attorney Parsons filed a petition to withdraw as counsel, 

averring he was no longer employed “with the Venango County Public 

Defender’s Office” and that “someone else ha[d] been assigned to this case.” 

Petition to Withdraw, 4/8/2019. On May 1, 2019, this Court denied Attorney 

Parsons’s request without prejudice, advising Attorney Parsons that he may 
J-S38038-18

- 4 -

refile his petition to withdraw once substitute counsel entered an 

appearance. Order, 5/1/2019. Soon thereafter, Tina M. Fryling, Esquire, 

entered her appearance in this case on behalf of Appellant.3 

On May 15, 2019, Attorney Fryling filed a brief which included, inter 

alia, an argument section setting forth the merits of Appellant’s claim, an 

argument section “pursuant to Santiago[,]” explaining why Appellant’s 

issue was without merit, and a paragraph titled “conclusion[,]” which stated

that “[t]here are no non-frivolous issues for review in this case.” Appellant’s 

Brief at 5. Thus, it appears Attorney Fryling is attempting to assert that 

Appellant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Notably, however, Attorney Fryling 

neither filed a corresponding petition to withdraw nor followed the 

procedures pursuant to Anders and Santiago.

4

 

 

3 Attorney Parsons has yet to refile a petition to withdraw. In light of 

Attorney Fryling’s entry of appearance, Attorney Parsons should now file a 

petition to withdraw as counsel for Appellant.

4 Counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders and its progeny 

must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious 

examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly 

frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth 

issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any 

other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation 

thereof....

Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders

petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the 

right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any 

additional points worthy of this Court’s attention.
J-S38038-18

- 5 -

In light of the foregoing, we direct Attorney Fryling to file either an 

advocate’s brief or a compliant Anders brief5 and petition to withdraw, along 

with an accompanying letter advising Appellant of her right to retain new 

counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points Appellant deems 

worthy of this Court’s attention. Counsel is directed to comply with every 

aspect of this memorandum within 30 days of the date this memorandum is 

filed.

6

 Appellant and the Commonwealth shall have 30 days from the date 

that counsel files her brief in order to file a responsive brief.

Jurisdiction retained.

 

If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical 

requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to 

withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions 

(e.g., directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an 

advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). 

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(citations omitted). 

5 To be clear, counsel’s new Anders brief must follow all of the 

requirements described in footnote two, supra.

6 Lastly, we note with extreme displeasure the excessive delay in this case 

and the manner in which this case has been handled by prior and current 

court-appointed counsel. It has been 18 months since Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal in this straight-forward probation revocation case, but due 

to the errors of counsel, this Court has not been afforded the opportunity to 

review this appeal on its merits. Such a delay is unacceptable. We direct 

current counsel to review carefully the instructions and case law set forth 

supra and comply with the aforementioned requirements, so as to allow this 

Court to dispose of this case promptly upon the receipt of new filings from 

counsel.
J-S38038-18

- 6 -

Judge Nichols joins this memorandum.

Judge Bowes joins and files a concurring statement for this 

memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/21/19