J-S42033-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRUCE BICKEL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 329 WDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-CR-0000213-2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED: APRIL 28, 2023

Bruce Bickel, nunc pro tunc,

1 appeals from the post-hearing order 

denying relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541–9546. On appeal, Bickel contends that his trial counsel was 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 As background, the lower court issued the appealed-from order without 

Bickel being present. In looking at the order’s contents, it does not “advise 

[Bickel] of the right to appeal from [that order] disposing of the petition [nor] 

of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E).

Bickel’s nunc pro tunc counseled notice of appeal from the February 11, 2022

order was filed on March 21, 2022, exceeding the permitted filing period. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (thirty days). Despite the untimeliness of this notice, we 

conclude that there has been a breakdown in the court’s operation given the 

infirmity associated with the appealed-from order, i.e., the absence of 

information regarding its appealability. Consequently, we decline to quash the 

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 113 (Pa. Super. 

1995) (allowing for this Court to permit an enlargement of the filing period in 

situations that involve a breakdown in the processes of the lower court). 
J-S42033-22

- 2 -

ineffective, that his guilty plea is void, and that his sentence is illegal. 

Separately, PCRA counsel has filed an Anders2 brief, asserting that an 

examination of the record has uncovered no non-frivolous issues to pursue in 

this appeal.3 After thorough review, we affirm the PCRA court’s order and 

additionally grant counsel’s application to withdraw. 

As cogently summarized by the court:

This case has a complex and lengthy procedural history, but 

essentially arises out of two complaints at two separate dockets 

regarding [Bickel’s] alleged sexual abuse of two children, F.A.S. 

and J.D.B. On September 22, 2016, while [Bickel] was being 

interviewed by Meadville City Police regarding the allegations 

involving J.D.B. ... he opened his cell phone and showed Meadville 

City Detective Justin Bailey pornographic pictures involving 

minors. As a result, [Bickel’s] phone was taken and placed in 

evidence at the Meadville City Police Department, and he was 

arrested on the sexual abuse charges involving J.D.B., as well as 

charges involving possession of child pornography.

At [the present] docket, Detective Sergeant Stefanucci ... obtained 

a search warrant on January 11, 2017 for [Bickel’s] cell phone, 

based on F.A.S.’s allegations that he had taken pornographic 

____________________________________________

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

3 We note that counsel’s brief is mistakenly labeled as an Anders brief. 

Anders applies only when counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on 

direct appeal. As counsel, here, attempts to withdraw in Bickel’s collateral 

appeal, Turner and Finley apply. See Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 

816, 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 

927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) 

(en banc)). Notwithstanding that error, counsel’s mistake is not fatal to an 

application to withdraw. We have repeatedly held that “because an Anders

brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an 

Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.” See, e.g., id. (citation 

omitted). As such, we are inclined to accept counsel's Anders brief and 

correspondingly evaluate whether it substantially complies with the

Turner/Finley criteria. See id., at 819.
J-S42033-22

- 3 -

pictures of her with the cell phone. The phone was then sent to 

the Pennsylvania State Police (hereinafter “PSP”) for inspection. 

On February 2, 2017, PSP prepared a report detailing the results 

of the inspection of [Bickel’s] cell phone, which found several 

photos of both male and female juveniles, ranging in age from 

toddler to teenager. [Bickel] was subsequently arrested regarding 

the sexual abuse allegations made by F.A.S. and possession of 

child pornography. 

[Bickel] was initially represented by Attorney Wayne Hundertmark 

at both dockets. Attorney Hundertmark withdrew his appearance 

at the [current] docket when Attorney Gary Kern entered his 

appearance on July 10, 2017. ... Attorney Kern represented 

[Bickel] ... through sentencing. 

[Ultimately], [Bickel] entered a guilty plea [at the 2017 case] ... 

to ten counts of Sexual Abuse of Children – Possession of Child 

Pornography pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d)(1). ... The 

Commonwealth and Attorney Kern also negotiated an agreedupon sentence[. The other charges Bickel faced, such as, inter 

alia, rape of a child and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse 

with a child were nolle prossed as a result of this plea.]

On May 3, 2019, [Bickel] was sentenced ... to the agreed-upon 

sentence of five to twenty-five years of incarceration[.] Prior to 

sentencing, Attorney Kern went over the [“]Appellate Rights of 

Defendant [a]fter Sentencing[”] with [Bickel] to ensure that he 

understood his post-sentence and appellate rights after entry of a 

guilty plea. 

Memorandum and Order, 11/17/21, at 1-2. Bickel did not file a direct appeal.

Approximately eleven months after this sentence was imposed, Bickel, 

pro se, filed the present PCRA petition. The court appointed Bickel with 

counsel, who thereafter submitted an amended petition. 

The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 23, 2021, and

after hearing the testimony of both Bickel and Attorney Kern, found no merit 

to any of the issues advanced in either Bickel’s pro se or counseled petition. 
J-S42033-22

- 4 -

The court reached this determination contemporaneous with its issuance of an 

exhaustive memorandum and order evaluating all of the outstanding PCRA 

issues. On February 10, 2022, the court entered an order dismissing Bickel’s 

PCRA petition and as explained, supra, Bickel filed a counseled notice of appeal 

nunc pro tunc from this order. Thereafter, the relevant parties complied with 

their respective obligations under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925. As such, the matter is ripe for review.

Before we begin any substantive analysis of Bickel’s claims, we must 

address the outstanding motion to withdraw filed by Bickel’s PCRA counsel. To 

withdraw from PCRA representation, counsel must competently and 

independently review the record. That review requires: (1) a “no-merit” letter 

by PCRA counsel detailing the nature and extent of his review; (2) a “nomerit” letter by PCRA counsel listing each issue the petitioner wished to have 

reviewed; (3) PCRA counsel's explanation, in the “no-merit” letter, as to why 

the petitioner's issues are meritless; (4) independent review of the record by 

the PCRA or appellate court; and (5) agreement by the PCRA or appellate 

court that the petition was meritless. See Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 

875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009) (quoting Finley, 550 A.2d at 215). In addition to 

these five precepts, 

PCRA counsel who seeks to withdraw must contemporaneously 

serve a copy on the petitioner of counsel's application to withdraw 

as counsel, and must supply to the petitioner both a copy of the 

“no-merit” letter and a statement advising the petitioner that, in 

the event that the court grants the application of counsel to 

withdraw, he or she has the right to proceed pro se or with the 
J-S42033-22

- 5 -

assistance of privately[-]retained counsel.

Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 614 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Despite some irregularities,4there has been substantial compliance with 

Turner/Finley and Friend. Counsel’s application indicates that “[t]he 

undersigned has undertaken a thorough and conscientious review of the entire 

record in this matter.” Application to Withdraw as Counsel, ¶ 2. Counsel’s brief 

maintains the same: “[a]fter a thorough and careful review of the entire record 

in this case ... [.]” See, e.g., Anders Brief, 16, 18. In addition, the application

to withdraw, Anders brief, and letter advising Bickel of his rights going 

forward were designated as having been served upon him. See Application to 

Withdraw as Counsel, ¶ 6. Relatedly, Bickel was advised of his ability to 

proceed pro se or with private counsel, and Bickel’s acknowledgement of this 

advisement is evident through a responsive/subsequent pro se filing.

5

In 

____________________________________________

4 For instance, originally, counsel included language suggesting that Bickel’s 

ability to proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel was predicated on 

this Court granting counsel’s application to withdraw. See Application to 

Withdraw as Counsel, Ex. A. However, after being ordered to do so, counsel 

corrected this error by, inter alia, sending another letter to Bickel serving to 

apprise him of his immediate right to proceed pro se or with private counsel. 

Moreover, independent of this misstatement, counsel did not append a copy 

of Bickel’s statement of errors contained of on appeal to the Anders brief. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d).

5 As best as can be discerned, Bickel’s pro se and handwritten submission does 

not raise any issues that are independent from those contained in the 

counseled brief. In fact, Bickel’s pro se statement of questions involved

contained in his most recent filing only includes three substantive issues, 

whereas the Anders brief contains an additional ineffective assistance of 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S42033-22

- 6 -

addition, counsel’s brief, acting as the “no-merit” letter, outlines the issues 

Bickel seeks review of and concomitantly, in a well-developed manner,

explains why those issues are, in fact, meritless. 

As counsel has substantially complied with the procedural requirements 

for withdrawal, we ascertain whether there is any validity to any of the claims 

contained either within the brief or raised by Bickel in a pro se capacity. 

Our standard of review for an order that dismisses a PCRA petition 

requires this Court to dually consider whether the PCRA court’s determination 

is supported by evidence of record and, too, free of legal error. See 

Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted). However, we are limited to the PCRA court’s findings and evidence 

of record, which are viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party 

at the lower court level. See id. To the extent the PCRA court has made 

credibility determinations, if the record supports those conclusions, they are 

binding on this Court. See Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 818, 820 

(Pa. Super. 2011).

The Anders brief raises four issues:

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for being unwilling to prepare for 

or go to trial and also failing to locate or speak with two 

potential trial witnesses that Bickel identified to counsel?

____________________________________________

counsel allegation, which, in the aggregate, amounts to four issues.

Notwithstanding that disparity, later in Bickel’s pro se filing, four discrete 

issues are contained in his argument summary section. These four issues

parallel those identified in counsel’s Anders brief. 
J-S42033-22

- 7 -

2. Was trial counsel ineffective for not discussing case or defense 

strategy with Bickel, thereby unlawfully inducing him to enter 

into a guilty plea?

3. Is Bickel’s guilty plea void where he did not take an oath or 

affirmation prior to its entry?

4. Is Bickel’s sentence illegal where, in addition to his term of 

incarceration, he was required to pay a fine, but no inquiry was 

made into his ability to pay said fine?

Anders Brief, at 5-6.

As the first two arguments contest counsel’s effectiveness, we start from 

the position that “counsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of 

demonstrating effectiveness rests on [the] appellant.” Commonwealth v. 

Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). Specifically, 

for an ineffectiveness claim to have validity,

[a] petitioner must show (1) that the underlying claim has merit; 

(2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action 

or inaction; and (3) but for the errors or omissions of counsel, 

there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the 

proceedings would have been different. The failure to prove any 

one of the three prongs results in the failure of petitioner's claim.

Id. (citation omitted). 

As these ineffectiveness challenges follow Bickel having accepted a 

guilty plea:

Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a 

guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness 

caused [an] appellant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea. 

In determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and 

intelligently, a reviewing court must review all of the 

circumstances surrounding the entry of that plea.

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257, 1272 (Pa. 2014) (citations 
J-S42033-22

- 8 -

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023 (Pa. 

Super. 2016) (establishing that “a guilty plea must be knowingly, voluntarily 

and intelligently entered[]”) (citation omitted).

Similar to the presumption that counsel was effective, “Pennsylvania law 

presumes a defendant who entered a guilty plea was aware of what he was 

doing, and the defendant bears the burden of proving otherwise.” 

Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Furthermore, “one is bound by one’s statements made during a plea colloquy,

and may not successfully assert claims that contradict such statements.” 

Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378, 384 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

Bickel first avers that his counsel was ineffective for failing to locate two 

witnesses: (1) a PSP trooper named Danielle; and (2) F.A.S.’s mother.

As to the former witness, Bickel believes that F.A.S. and that trooper 

had a conversation, but was unaware of what had been discussed between 

them. Bickel concedes that he “was unable to provide Attorney Kern with the 

trooper’s last name.” Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, at 24. Bickel also 

admits that he has “no idea what [T]rooper Danielle and F.A.S. may have 

discussed and could not verify their conversation[.]” Id., at 25.

At the PCRA hearing, Attorney Kern stated that he called the local PSP 

barracks and “asked to speak to a Trooper Danielle[,]” but no one by that 

name worked at that facility. PCRA Hearing, 8/23/21, at 136. Further inquiry 

led to the discovery that there had been a Danielle working at that barracks 
J-S42033-22

- 9 -

at some point, but it was believed that she had left the force. See id. Attorney 

Kern then went onto Facebook and sent a message to a former PSP trooper 

by the name of Danielle, but did not receive a response. See id. 

With Bickel having no specific identifying information (other than a first 

name) about Trooper Danielle and, too, with him having no clear concept of 

whether this Trooper’s testimony would be in any way relevant should this 

case have gone to trial, Bickel has not satisfied any of the three ineffective 

assistance prongs. Stated succinctly, Bickel has not demonstrated that there 

is underlying merit to the notion that this Trooper’s testimony would have 

been in any way valuable at trial, Attorney Kern’s actions were responsive to 

Bickel’s directives and clearly reasonable in tracking this Trooper down based 

on the information that had been provided, and finally, Bickel has failed to 

demonstrate that counsel actually finding the Trooper would have yielded any 

sort of different result. Therefore, this claim warrants no relief.

As to F.A.S.’s mother, Bickel suggests that “F.A.S.’s mother had 

information that was valuable to his case and [therefore] wanted her 

subpoenaed.” Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, at 26.

Conversely, Attorney Kern believed that any information gleaned from 

this individual would be unlikely “to lead to any relevant or admissible 

information[.]” PCRA Hearing, 8/23/21, at 138. Essentially, to Attorney Kern, 

Bickel wanted F.A.S.’s mother investigated for unrelated allegations of poor 

parenting. See id. (providing an anecdote about how F.A.S.’s mother asked 
J-S42033-22

- 10 -

Bickel to watch her children while she went to meet up with a man in New 

York for several days). However, Bickel’s desired questioning “didn’t go to any 

of the elements of the crime” and “[w]ould not have changed the outcome of 

the case[.]” Id., at 138-39.

Bickel’s pro se filing fails to demonstrate that there would have been 

any merit to obtaining the testimony of F.A.S.’s mother. Moreover, it is 

entirely unclear what kind of information, relevant to the elements or defenses 

of the crimes in which he had been charged, Bickel thinks he could have 

extracted from F.A.S.’s mother. To that point, Bickel acknowledges that he 

and Attorney Kern “discussed why [the Attorney] did not feel that F.A.S.’s 

mother would be an appropriate witness.” Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, 

at 27. Even through the most generous reading of his pro se brief, which we 

consider in tandem with the Anders brief, Bickel has presented absolutely 

nothing to show that counsel’s inaction in not subpoenaing F.A.S.’s mother 

was unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that Bickel and Attorney Kern 

had a complete discussion on the matter. Furthermore, without Bickel framing 

the type of information he could have expected to receive from the mother’s 

testimony, there is no indicia that anything obtained could have changed 

proceedings. Therefore, Bickel’s claim of ineffective assistance necessarily 

fails.

Bickel’s other ineffective assistance of counsel claim contends that 

Attorney Kern failed to discuss either trial strategy or potential defenses with 
J-S42033-22

- 11 -

him. 

At the hearing, Bickel testified that Attorney Kern apprised him of the

elements of the charges he was facing. See PCRA Hearing, 8/23/21, at 37-

38. However, Bickel avers that Attorney Kern stated there were no defenses

to any of those crimes. See Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, at 28.

Bickel believed he had a defense insofar as he was “helping a minor 

child prove that she ... and her two ... siblings were being molested and 

photographed by F.A.S.’s half brother.” Id. Bickel also contends that as a 

member of the Pennsylvania State Fire Police and/or in his position as an 

unlicensed private investigator, he could investigate crimes of this nature. See 

id. Additionally, Bickel suggests that Attorney Kern did not explain to him “the 

Good Samaritan Laws.” Id., at 29.

Attorney Kern stated that he did, in fact, have conversations with Bickel 

about various defenses that he could have raised, specifically as it pertained 

to the possession of child pornography charges. See PCRA Hearing, 8/23/21, 

at 130. After conducting legal research, Attorney Kern had determined that 

relevant child pornography-related defenses were inapplicable if that material

was being possessed for any reason other than a “good-faith, bona fide, 

medical, scientific, or law enforcement function.” Id. Attorney Kern conveyed 

to Bickel that such defenses were likely inapplicable to his situation. See id. 

However, Attorney Kern was still prepared to vigorously defend his client, 

should the case have gone to trial. See id., at 134 (testifying that Attorney 
J-S42033-22

- 12 -

Kern would have argued that Bickel “was operating under a subjective believe 

that he was engaging in some sort of professional or semi professional 

investigation[.]”). Attorney Kern was also capable of presenting defenses to 

the other sex-related charges Bickel was facing given that, inter alia, F.A.S. 

“had given conflicting statements.” Id.

Bickel concedes that “Attorney Kern did discuss some trial and defense 

strategy with [him] and that [he] understood part of said discussions.” Pro Se 

Response to Anders Brief, at 30. Bickel also writes that “[i]t appears as 

Attorney Kern may have acted reasonably by reviewing and researching part 

of Bickel’s desired defense as well as other potential defenses into both the 

possession of child pornography charges and the charges involving sexual 

conduct.” Id., at 31. With all of that said, however, Bickel asserts that 

Attorney Kern failed to discuss “all trial or all defense stateg[ies] with arguable 

merit.” Id. Specifically, “Attorney Kern did not tell Bickel about The Good 

Samaritan Immunity Law, until the PCRA hearing while he was testifying on 

the stand.” Id. 

Bickel does not elaborate on what he means by “The Good Samaritan 

Immunity Law” and such a reference did not come up during the PCRA 

hearing. To the extent that “Law” is analogous to the aforementioned defenses 

for the possession of child pornography, Attorney Kern made it clear to him 

that such a defense was likely inapplicable, as Bickel’s actions were almost 

certainly not part of a bona fide law enforcement action, regardless of the fire 
J-S42033-22

- 13 -

or investigation-related titles Bickel may possess. Attorney Kern acted 

reasonably in reviewing Bickel’s desired defense, but it led to a determination 

that such a defense would almost certainty lead to no success. Therefore, as 

counsel fully informed Bickel of the situation that he faced and had a 

reasonable basis to discuss the inapplicability of Bickel’s desired defense, 

Bickel has failed to demonstrate that he suffered from ineffective assistance 

of counsel.

In his next issue, Bickel “desires to argue that his plea of guilty is void” 

because “he did not take an oath prior to the entry of his guilty plea.” Pro Se 

Response to Anders Brief, at 31. Bickel then quotes a passage in the Bible. 

See id., at 32. However, Bickel concedes that he testified “to the best of his 

ability during his plea colloquy with the trial court[.]” Id., at 34.

As the present matter involves PCRA proceedings, which are limited in 

scope, Bickel has failed to demonstrate which statutory basis for relief he 

seeks. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2) (outlining the seven argumentative 

bases for a PCRA petition). Other than his citation to the Bible, Bickel has not 

provided any authority to show that this claim is cognizable under the PCRA.6

Even through our own independent research, we have not found any specific 

ground for such a contention to warrant relief under the PCRA. As such, 

____________________________________________

6 Bickel baldly suggests that “his conviction or sentence was a direct result of 

him not taking such an oath[,]” Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, at 34, 

possibly as some sort of illegal sentence/jurisdictional defect, but does not 

elaborate as to how that could fit under any of the PCRA’s auspices.
J-S42033-22

- 14 -

Bickel’s claim is without merit. 

Bickel’s last argument suggests that the trial court failed to make a presentence inquiry into his ability to pay a fine, which amounted to $100 and 

court costs. Bickel cites to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9726(c) and Commonwealth v. 

Ford, 217 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2019), for this proposition and considers his sentence 

to be illegal. 

Bickel admits that prior to sentencing him to this fine, “the trial court 

reviewed Bickel’s presentence report, which contained information regarding 

[his] financial status and ability to pay.” Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, at 

35 (record citations omitted). Additionally, “Attorney Kern highlighted [to the 

court] and corrected various aspects of Bickel’s presentence report, including 

information regarding a hauling business which Bickel claimed was never 

profitable for him[.]” Id. Furthermore, the presentence report stated that 

Bickel was on Social Security Disability. Despite all of this, Bickel insinuates 

that the court had an inaccurate picture of his finances and that the court 

should have conducted an ability-to-pay analysis. 

Bickel’s argument does not provide any indication that the court 

somehow relied upon the wrong economic information when it imposed a fine 

against him. Also, assuming they contain sufficient information, Courts are 

allowed to use presentencing investigation reports to satisfy the requirements 

of Section 9726(c). See Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1274 (Pa. 

Super. 2013). As such, despite suggesting that some sort of on-the-record 
J-S42033-22

- 15 -

inquiry was necessary, Bickel has not provided any reason to conclude that 

the lower court, who had the benefit of a detailed presentence investigation,

was without the information that it needed to ascertain whether he had the 

ability to pay the fine. Therefore, Bickel’s claim is frivolous and does not 

warrant relief. 

Finally, in his pro se brief, Bickel has appended what appears to be an 

additional argument (or series of arguments) that his cellular phone was 

illegally seized without a warrant. Bickel also asserts that he was denied his 

right to call his attorney when he requested to do so at some point during 

police questioning. These claims come after two pages of citationless 

narrative, and the arguments, themselves, do not contain any references to 

authority. “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we 

scour the record to find evidence to support an argument.” Milby v. Pote, 

189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018). Similarly, we “will not act as counsel 

and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth 

v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).

As Bickel has failed to provide even a scintilla of record evidence or 

support to prove these claims of a seemingly constitutional nature, there is no 

basis to conclude that he is entitled to any relief here, either. 

In finding no merit to any of the claims advanced in the Anders brief or 

by Bickel in a pro se capacity, we affirm the lower court’s order dismissing 
J-S42033-22

- 16 -

Bickel’s PCRA petition.7

Application to withdraw granted. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2023 

____________________________________________

7 Relatedly, our independent review of the record, too, has uncovered no 

additional issues worthy of review or analysis.