J-S50036-20

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

GLENN BRENNAN,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 1377 EDA 2020

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 30, 2020

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003262-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 19, 2021

Appellant, Glenn Brennan, appeals from the order entered on June 30, 

2020, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546. Counsel has petitioned to withdraw

pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). For 

reasons explained infra, we direct counsel to send copies of the letter, 

petition to withdraw, and Turner/Finley brief to Appellant with amended 

certificates demonstrating proper service on Appellant and the 

Commonwealth.

A prior panel of this Court provided the following background.

The record reveals that Appellant committed and conspired 

to commit multiple robberies of commercial establishments 

between January 11, 2015, and February 28, 2015. In 

connection with those crimes, on March 19, 2015, Appellant was 
J-S50036-20

- 2 -

charged with eleven counts of robbery (threatening to commit 

serious bodily injury),1 eleven counts of conspiracy to commit 

robbery (threatening to commit serious bodily injury),2 eleven 

counts of robbery (inflicting serious bodily injury, threatening to 

inflict serious bodily injury, or intentionally putting one in fear of 

immediate bodily injury),3 eleven counts of conspiracy to commit 

robbery (inflicting serious bodily injury, threatening to inflict 

serious bodily injury, or intentionally putting one in fear of 

immediate bodily injury),4 eleven counts of theft by unlawful 

taking,5 eleven counts of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful 

taking,6 eleven counts of receiving stolen property,7 eleven 

counts of conspiracy to commit receiving stolen property,8ten 

counts of making terroristic threats,9ten counts of possessing an 

instrument of crime,10 ten counts of simple assault,11 and ten 

counts of recklessly endangering another person.12

______

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(iv).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

6 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).

7 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

8 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).

9 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1).

10 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a).

11 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3).

12 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.

On July 27, 2015, Appellant entered guilty pleas to all charges.

On December 28, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 

consecutive terms of eighteen to thirty-six months of 

incarceration on the eleven counts of robbery (threatening to 
J-S50036-20

- 3 -

commit serious bodily injury), and a concurrent term of twenty 

years of probation for one count of conspiracy to commit robbery 

(threatening to commit serious bodily injury). No further penalty 

was imposed at the remaining counts. This resulted in an 

aggregate sentence of sixteen and one-half to thirty-three years 

of incarceration and a concurrent term of twenty years of 

probation. On January 6, 2016, Appellant filed a timely postsentence motion for reconsideration of his sentence. Following a 

hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion.

Commonwealth v. Brennan, 161 A.3d 373, 1490 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super., 

filed February 10, 2017) (unpublished memorandum at *1–3). Appellant 

appealed to this Court, challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Upon review, we affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Id. Appellant 

filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which our Supreme Court denied on 

August 8, 2017. Commonwealth v. Brennan, 170 A.3d 978, 145 MAL 

2017 (Pa., filed August 8, 2017).

The PCRA court recounted the procedural history of this case, as 

follows:

On March 26, 2018, [Appellant] filed a timely, pro se PCRA 

petition. By order dated May 4, 2018, PCRA counsel was 

appointed and was directed to file an amended petition setting 

forth all claims [Appellant] sought to pursue. On May 14, 2018, 

PCRA counsel filed a petition for an extension of time within 

which to file his amended petition. By Order dated May 23, 

2018, PCRA counsel’s request was granted.

On August 21, 2018, PCRA counsel filed a “no-merit” letter 

pursuant to [Turner and Finley] and moved to withdraw as 

PCRA counsel due to a lack of meritorious issues. In the 

Turner/Finley letter, PCRA counsel asserted that his review of 

the record and his discussions with trial counsel revealed no 

basis to question the voluntariness of [Appellant’s] plea. PCRA 

counsel also advised ... that [Appellant] had failed to respond to 

counsel’s inquiries regarding [Appellant’s] discussions with trial 
J-S50036-20

- 4 -

counsel and his understanding of the rights he was surrendering 

by entering the plea. PCRA counsel concluded that without 

[Appellant’s] cooperation and input, he could find no basis for 

PCRA relief.

On November 20, 2018, PCRA counsel filed a motion 

requesting additional time to examine [Appellant’s] claims based 

on a communication he received from [Appellant] on November 

19, 2018. By Order dated November 27, 2018, PCRA counsel 

was granted until January 15, 2019[,] to file an amended PCRA 

petition. 

On January 7, 2019, PCRA counsel again filed for leave to 

withdraw due to [Appellant’s] continued failure to communicate 

with counsel. After reviewing [Appellant’s] pro se petition, 

counsel’s “no merit” letter and the record in this case, th[e PCRA 

c]ourt entered a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to 

[Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 907 on April 24, 2019, 

advising [Appellant] that th[e PCRA c]ourt intended to dismiss 

[Appellant’s] request for PCRA relief without a hearing and 

further advising him that he had twenty days from the entry of 

the order to file a response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and 

PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley letter. [Appellant] did not file a 

response.

By Order dated June 14, 2019, th[e PCRA c]ourt scheduled 

a video status hearing for July 18, 2019[,] to confirm 

[Appellant’s] receipt of the Turner/Finley letter and the Notice 

of Intent to Dismiss and to inquire whether he intended to file a 

response. At that hearing, PCRA counsel advised th[e PCRA 

c]ourt that [Appellant] had experienced difficulty communicating 

with counsel but that problem had been discussed and addressed 

between he [sic] and his client. Based on their pre-hearing 

discussions, PCRA counsel requested additional time to 

investigate potential meritorious issues. PCRA counsel’s request 

was granted and he was directed to submit a proposed 

scheduling order by August 1, 2019. On July 22, 2019, PCRA 

counsel submitted a proposed scheduling order. By Order dated 

July 31, 2019, PCRA counsel was granted leave to file an 

amended PCRA petition on or before September 30, 2019. On 

September 5, 2019, PCRA counsel filed an amended PCRA 

petition[, raising a single claim of ineffective assistance of plea 

counsel for convincing Appellant to “plead guilty by erroneously 

telling him he had no chance to suppress statements obtained 
J-S50036-20

- 5 -

from him by police while he was under the effect of intoxicating 

substances, and he was incapable of giving voluntary, knowing 

and intelligent consent to waive the presence and advice of 

counsel.” Motion to Amend PCRA Petition, 9/5/19, at ¶ 2(a).] 

On September 26, 2019, the Commonwealth filed its Answer. On 

February 7, 2020, a hearing was held. [At the hearing, the 

PCRA court heard testimony from plea counsel and Appellant.] 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were directed to file 

briefs. By Order dated June 30, 2020, [Appellant’s] request for 

PCRA relief was denied.

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/27/20, at 7–8 (record citations omitted).

This timely-filed notice of appeal followed. The PCRA court directed 

Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). In lieu of 

filing a concise statement, counsel filed a statement of intent to file an 

Anders/Santiago1 brief pursuant to Rule 1925(c)(4). The PCRA court filed 

a Rule 1925(a) opinion on July 27, 2020. As noted, counsel has filed a 

Turner/Finley brief in this Court on Appellant’s behalf, and counsel’s 

petition to withdraw remains outstanding.

Prior to addressing the merits of the issues on appeal, we must first 

determine whether counsel has fulfilled the procedural requirements for 

withdrawing his representation. Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 

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

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Where counsel seeks to withdraw on 

appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, a Turner/Finley “no-merit letter” is 

the appropriate filing. Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137, 139 n.5 

(Pa. Super. 2014). As noted, counsel ultimately filed a Turner/Finley brief 

in this Court.
J-S50036-20

- 6 -

795, 797 (Pa. Super. 2008). This Court has listed conditions counsel must 

satisfy when seeking to withdraw in a collateral appeal:

Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must 

proceed . . . under Turner, supra and Finley, supra and . . . 

must review the case zealously. Turner/Finley counsel must 

then submit a “no-merit” letter to the trial court, or brief on 

appeal to this Court, detailing the nature and extent of counsel’s 

diligent review of the case, listing the issues which petitioner 

wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues 

lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.

Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the “no 

merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to withdraw; 

and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed 

pro se or by new counsel.

* * *

[W]here counsel submits a petition and no-merit letter that ... 

satisfy the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the [court in 

which the application was filed, meaning the trial court or the 

appellate court] must then conduct its own review of the merits 

of the case. If the court agrees with counsel that the claims are 

without merit, the court will permit counsel to withdraw and 

deny relief.

Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation 

omitted).

In his petition to withdraw, counsel stated that he furnished a copy of 

his petition to withdraw to Appellant, and he included a copy of the letter he 

allegedly sent to Appellant. However, other than counsel’s statement,

nothing in the letter, petition to withdraw, or certified record confirms that 

counsel contemporaneously served Appellant with copies of the letter, 

petition to withdraw, and Turner/Finley brief. Instead, the proofs of 
J-S50036-20

- 7 -

service attached to counsel’s filings indicate service on the Commonwealth 

only. No proof of service was included with the letter appended to the 

petition to withdraw or the Turner/Finley brief. Thus, counsel has not 

complied with the Turner/Finley notice requirements.

Accordingly, we are compelled to direct counsel to send a copy of the 

letter, petition to withdraw, and Turner/Finley brief to Appellant with 

amended certificates demonstrating proper service on Appellant and the 

Commonwealth, within ten days of the filing of this Memorandum.

Panel jurisdiction retained.

Judge Strassburger did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/19/2021