J-S42007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARC ANTHONY CHEESEMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1095 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 19, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0002325-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARC ANTHONY CHEESEMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1096 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 19, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0003010-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARC ANTHONY CHEESEMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1097 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 19, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0003016-2022
J-S42007-23

- 2 -

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2024

Marc Anthony Cheeseman appeals from the judgments of sentence 

imposed at three different docket numbers following his guilty pleas.1 Counsel

has filed a petition to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 

2009). We affirm Appellant’s judgments of sentence and grant counsel’s 

petition to withdraw.

At Docket 2325-2020, Appellant entered a guilty plea on April 21, 2022, 

to driving under the influence (“DUI”) as a first offense and driving with a 

suspended license as a third offense. Sentencing was deferred for multiple 

reasons, including Appellant’s arrest on the charges related to Docket 3010-

2022. On September 19, 2022, Appellant entered guilty pleas at the 

remaining dockets. Specifically, at Docket 3010-2022, he pled guilty to theft 

by deception, identity theft, and misrepresentation of a member of the 

military. The underlying facts were that Appellant fueled a gambling addiction 

by conning an elderly couple into loaning him over $319,000 between 2017 

and 2020. To do so, Appellant provided fraudulent documents to the couple

claiming that he was a veteran and former union carpenter, that he needed 

the money to unfreeze his military pension and union pension, and that he 

had the ability to repay. See N.T. Plea, 9/19/22, at 7-10. At Docket 3016-

2022, he pled guilty to driving with a suspended license as a third or 

____________________________________________

1 This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.
J-S42007-23

- 3 -

subsequent violation and vehicle registration suspended. Sentencing was 

again deferred, this time for Appellant to obtain mitigation evidence.

On January 19, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant as follows at all 

three docket numbers:

- Docket 3010-2022: four to ten years of incarceration for theft 

by deception, followed by twenty-four months of probation for 

identity theft and twelve more months for the 

misrepresentation conviction;

- Docket 3016-2022: six to twelve months of incarceration for 

driving with a suspended license, to run consecutively to the 

sentence imposed at Docket 3010-2022;

- Docket 2325-2020: six to twelve months of incarceration for 

driving with a suspended license, to run consecutively to the 

other periods of incarceration, and a concurrent term of six 

months of probation for DUI.

In total, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 

incarceration of five to twelve years, followed by thirty-six months of 

probation. He was also ordered to pay restitution at Docket 3010-2022. 

Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions asking the court to reconsider 

the sentence imposed in light of a new psychological evaluation. The court 

held a hearing, during which it reviewed the evaluation and heard Appellant’s 

request for a shorter prison sentence to begin working to be able to repay the 

restitution. The court found that no new evidence had been presented that 

would convince it to alter the sentences imposed and that Appellant would 

most benefit from long-term treatment in a state institution. Therefore, the 

court denied the motions.
J-S42007-23

- 4 -

These timely filed notices of appeal followed. Counsel filed a notice of 

intent to file an Anders brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), and the trial 

court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion agreeing that no meritorious issues 

supported an appeal. In this Court, counsel filed a petition to withdraw and 

Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. Thus, the following legal 

principles guide our review:

Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders 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.

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). By contrast, if counsel’s petition and brief 

satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our own review of the 

appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous.

If the appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and 

affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are nonfrivolous issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the filing 

of an advocate’s brief.

Commonwealth v. Cook, 175 A.3d 345, 348 (Pa.Super. 2017) (cleaned up). 

Our Supreme Court has further detailed counsel’s duties as follows:

[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 
J-S42007-23

- 5 -

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, supra at 361.

Based upon our examination of counsel’s petition to withdraw and 

Anders brief, we conclude that counsel has complied with the technical 

requirements set forth above. In particular, counsel observed that Appellant 

waived all non-jurisdictional claims except the validity of his plea and the 

legality of his sentence by entering guilty pleas.2 See Commonwealth v. 

Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 212 (Pa. 2007) (“When a defendant pleads guilty, he 

waives the right to challenge anything but the legality of his sentence and the 

validity of his plea.” (cleaned up)); Commonwealth v. Guth, 735 A.2d 709, 

710 n.3 (Pa.Super. 1999). Counsel then detailed why none of the available 

claims arguably supports this appeal. See Anders brief at 12-15. 

Accordingly, we now conduct “a full examination of the proceedings and make 

an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly 

frivolous.’” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1249 (Pa.Super. 

2015) (quoting Santiago, supra at 354 n.5).

____________________________________________

2 Since Appellant did not negotiate the terms of his sentence, he may also 

petition this Court to review the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 

Commonwealth v. Guth, 735 A.2d 709, 710 n.3 (Pa.Super. 1999). We 

address the merits of such a claim within the body of this memorandum. 
J-S42007-23

- 6 -

At the outset, we readily agree with counsel that any jurisdictional 

challenge would be entirely frivolous as the facts agreed to by Appellant clearly 

established that the offenses occurred in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. See 

Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003) (“Controversies 

arising out of violations of the Crimes Code are entrusted to the original 

jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas for resolution. Every jurist within 

that tier of the unified judicial system is competent to hear and decide a matter 

arising out of the Crimes Code.” (cleaned up)).

We next address whether the validity of Appellant’s plea is properly 

challenged in this appeal. Critically, Appellant never sought to withdraw his 

plea, thereby waiving any such claim. See Commonwealth v. Moore, ___ 

A.3d ___, 2023 WL 8291712 at * 3-4 (Pa.Super. 2023) (concluding that a 

challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty plea was waived because the 

defendant did not raise the issue in his timely post sentence motion and did 

not otherwise timely file a motion to withdraw his plea). Accordingly, we agree 

with counsel that a challenge to the validity of his pleas would be frivolous. 

See Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“An 

issue that is waived is frivolous.”).

Turning to the legality of Appellant’s sentence, we observe that a 

sentence will be vacated as illegal if “no statutory authorization exists for [that 

particular] sentence[.]” Commonwealth v. Luciani, 201 A.3d 802, 807 

(Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned up). In that regard, our standard of review is
J-S42007-23

- 7 -

plenary and our focus is on ascertaining whether the trial court committed an 

error of law. Id. As explained by counsel and the Commonwealth, all of 

Appellant’s sentences fell below the statutory maximums, and two of the 

sentences were mandatorily imposed by statute. Where the trial court 

exceeded the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines, it provided 

reasoning on the record for doing so. See N.T. Sentencing, 1/19/23, at 54-

59. Therefore, we agree with counsel that a challenge to the legality of 

Appellant’s sentence would be inappropriate.

Counsel has also raised a potential claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Subject to several exceptions, “[g]enerally, a criminal defendant 

may not assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.” 

Commonwealth v. James, 297 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa.Super. 2023) (cleaned 

up). Instantly, none of the exceptions to this general rule applies in this case. 

See id. at 761 (explaining that ineffectiveness claims may be pursued on 

direct appeal “where (1) there are extraordinary circumstances in which trial 

counsel’s ineffectiveness is apparent from the record and meritorious to the 

extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of justice; or 

(2) there is good cause shown, and the defendant knowingly and expressly 

waives his entitlement to seek subsequent PCRA review of his conviction and 

sentence[;]” or (3) “the defendant is statutorily precluded from obtaining 

subsequent PCRA review” (cleaned up)). Thus, we agree that such a claim 
J-S42007-23

- 8 -

would be wholly frivolous, as any such claims should “be deferred to PCRA 

review.” Id. at 760 (cleaned up).

Finally, we conduct our “simple review of the record to ascertain if there 

appear[s] on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that counsel, 

intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 

187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc). Appellant may also petition 

this Court to review the discretionary aspects of his sentence because he did 

not negotiate the terms of his sentence. See Guth, supra at 710 n.3.

[A]n appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. We determine 

whether the appellant has invoked our jurisdiction by considering 

the following four factors: (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. Solomon, 247 A.3d 1163, 1167 (Pa.Super. 2021) (en 

banc) (cleaned up). If we reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing clam, 

we review for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1168. 

In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an 

error in judgment. Rather, Appellant must establish, by reference 

to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the 

law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, 

bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Id. (cleaned up). 

Assuming for the sake of argument that Appellant had invoked our 

jurisdiction, we would find any such claim meritless. Before imposing 
J-S42007-23

- 9 -

sentence, the trial court reviewed the pre-sentence investigation report, the 

arguments of counsel, and the sentencing guidelines. We have held that when 

the court has the benefit of such a report, we will “presume that the sentencing 

judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character 

and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” 

Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa.Super. 2020) (cleaned 

up). Moreover, the trial court detailed its analysis of the statutory factors and 

explained why it deemed it necessary to impose, in some instances,

aggravated and consecutive sentences. See N.T. Sentencing, 1/19/23, at 54-

61. 

Indeed, the court even afforded Appellant the opportunity of a postsentence motion hearing, reviewed the new psychological evaluation, and 

entertained Appellant’s allocution. However, the court ultimately concluded 

that the report and allocution did not merit a reduced sentence. The court’s 

denial of Appellant’s request for a reduced sentence does not amount to an 

abuse of discretion. In sum, our review has revealed no additional meritorious 

issues that counsel failed to address.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgments of sentence and grant 

counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Petition of Peter M. Williams, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel is granted. 

Judgments of sentence affirmed.
J-S42007-23

- 10 -

Date: 1/30/2024