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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee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 sen tence entered March 22, 2013, in the Bedford County Court of Commo n 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 withdra w 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 f orth below, we affirm, and grant counsel’s petition to withdr aw.

____________________________________________
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 expose d 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, t he trial court sentenced Furin to a term of 18 months’ probation. Th is timely appeal followed. When direct appeal counsel files a petition to withdra w 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 substan tially complied with the requirements for withdrawal outlined in Anders , supra , and its
progeny. 3 Moreover, the record contains no additional corresponden ce from

____________________________________________ 2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3127(a), 5901, and 5503(a)(3), respect ively.

3 Specifically, counsel filed a petition for leave to w ithdraw, 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 re cord 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 righ t to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute, in or der to reach the merits of such a claim, this Court must first determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of ap peal; (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 n ot 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 h is challenge either during the sentencing hearing, or in a timely filed motion f or reconsideration of sentence. Accordingly, it is waived for our review. See Commonwealth v. Trinidad , ___ A.3d ___, 2014 PA Super 78, *7 (Pa. Super. 20 14). 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 da ys of sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i). F ailure 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 neith er objectedJ-S34004- 14

- 4 -

to his plea during the plea hearing, nor filed a mot ion 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 withdra w 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 basi s of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Travis W. Livengood. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/18/2013, at 1- 3.