J-S34004-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

STEVEN ANDREW FURIN 

 Appellant No. 694 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 22, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-05-CR-0000366-2012 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2014

 Steven Andrew Furin appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

March 22, 2013, in the Bedford County Court of Common Pleas. Furin was 

sentenced to a term of 18 months’ probation following his plea of nolo 

contendre to one count of indecent exposure.1

 Contemporaneous with this 

appeal, Furin’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw from representation 

and an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 

Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). Counsel’s 

Anders brief challenges the voluntariness of Furin’s plea, and the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm, and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 3127(a). 
J-S34004-14

- 2 - 

 Furin was charged with indecent exposure, open lewdness and 

disorderly conduct,2

 following a verbal altercation with another man on July 

12, 2012, during which he yelled obscenities and exposed his genitals in the 

presence of a five-year-old child. On the day scheduled for jury selection, 

Furnin entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendre to one count of indecent 

exposure, in exchange for a sentence of probation and the Commonwealth’s 

dismissal of the remaining charges. On March 22, 2013, the trial court 

sentenced Furin to a term of 18 months’ probation. This timely appeal 

followed. 

 When direct appeal counsel files a petition to withdraw and 

accompanying Anders brief, we must first examine the request to withdraw 

before addressing any of the substantive issues raised on appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007). Here, 

our review of the record reveals that counsel has substantially complied with 

the requirements for withdrawal outlined in Anders, supra, and its 

progeny.3

 Moreover, the record contains no additional correspondence from 

____________________________________________ 

2

 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3127(a), 5901, and 5503(a)(3), respectively. 

3

 Specifically, counsel filed a petition for leave to withdraw, in which she 

states her belief that the appeal is wholly frivolous, filed an Anders brief 

pursuant to the dictates of Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 

361 (Pa. 2009), furnished a copy of the Anders brief to Furin and advised 

Furin of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se. Commonwealth 

v. Ferguson, 761 A.2d 613, 616 (Pa. Super. 2000). 
J-S34004-14

- 3 - 

Furin. Accordingly, we will proceed to examine the record and make an 

independent determination of whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

The first issue presented in the Anders brief challenges the 

discretionary aspects of Furin’s sentence. Because the right to appeal the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute, in order to reach the 

merits of such a claim, this Court must first determine: 

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) 

whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a 

motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether 

appellant's brief has a fatal defect; and (4) whether there is a 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code. 

Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2011) 

(footnotes omitted). Here, Furin has not satisfied the procedural 

prerequisite for our review since he failed to raise his challenge either during 

the sentencing hearing, or in a timely filed motion for reconsideration of 

sentence. Accordingly, it is waived for our review. See Commonwealth v. 

Trinidad, ___ A.3d ___, 2014 PA Super 78, *7 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

 Next, the Anders brief challenges the voluntariness of Furin’s guilty 

plea. 

A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty 

plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy 

or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of 

sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i). Failure to 

employ either measure results in waiver. Commonwealth v. 

Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1270 n. 3 (Pa.Super.2006).

Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-610 (Pa. Super. 2013), 

appeal denied, 87 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2014). Here, again, Furin neither objected 
J-S34004-14

- 4 - 

to his plea during the plea hearing, nor filed a motion to withdraw his guilty 

plea. Therefore, his challenge is now waived. 

Accordingly, because we agree with counsel’s assessment that Furin’s 

appeal is wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment of sentence and grant 

counsel’s petition to withdraw.4

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel 

granted. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/29/2014 

 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Were we to conclude that the claims presented in the Anders brief were 

not waived, we would, nevertheless, affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned 

opinion of the Honorable Travis W. Livengood. See Trial Court Opinion, 

6/18/2013, at 1-3.