J -S25014-19 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee 

v. 

JAY MICHAEL ENGLEHART 

Appellant No. 171 MDA 2019 

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered December 18, 2018 

In the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District 

Franklin County Branch 

Criminal Division at No: CP-28-CR-0001908-2017 

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 08, 2019 

Appellant, Jay Michael Englehart, appeals from the order entered on 

December 18, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District, 

Franklin County Branch, which denied his request for collateral relief under 

the Post Conviction Relief Act (the "PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Counsel 

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

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

2009). For the reasons explained below, we grant counsel's petition to 

withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

The factual and procedural backgrounds are not at issue here. Briefly, 

on August 1, 2017, Appellant was charged with, inter a/ia, driving under the 

influence. On February 22, 2018, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea 

with the Commonwealth. Pursuant to the plea, Appellant pled guilty to driving 
J -S25014-19 

under the influence, high rate, second offense. In turn, it was agreed 

Appellant would be sentenced to a six-month term of intermediate 

punishment. 

On the day of sentencing, March 28, 2018, Appellant sought to withdraw 

his plea. In response, the trial court rescheduled Appellant's sentencing to 

April 18, 2018. On April 18, 2018, represented by new counsel, Appellant 

renewed his request to withdraw his plea. The trial court continued the 

sentencing hearing generally, and scheduled a hearing on Appellant's 

withdrawal of plea request for May 18, 2018. After holding a hearing on that 

day, the trial court, on May 22, 2018, entered an order denying his request, 

and scheduled the sentencing hearing for June 6, 2018. On that day, the trial 

court sentenced Appellant to a six-month term of intermediate punishment. 

On June 7, 2018, Appellant pro se filed a PCRA petition, alleging, inter 

a/ia, ineffective assistance of counsel.' After appointing counsel for Appellant, 

the PCRA court held a hearing on Appellant's PCRA petition on October 5, 

2018. 

After considering the parties' arguments and briefs, the PCRA court, on 

December 18, 2018, entered an order denying Appellant's PCRA petition. 

On January 8, 2019, counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and 

a notice of appeal from the order denying Appellant's PCRA petition. On 

January 9, 2019, the PCRA court denied counsel's petition and ordered the 

" The PCRA petition was supplemented on July 24, 2018. 

-2 
J -S25014-19 

filing of a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On January 

31, 2019, Appellant filed his concise statement raising three claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

On March 18, 2019, counsel filed an Anders brief, and, on March 20, 

2019, filed an application to withdraw as counsel. On the same day, Appellant 

pro se filed an answer to counsel's Anders brief. 

We first review counsel's request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. 

Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) ("When faced with a purported 

Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues 

without first passing on the request to withdraw') (quoting Commonwealth 

v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)). Here, counsel's 

application to withdraw is barely adequate to meet the Anders/Santiago 

requirements.2 Despite some deficiencies in complying with the 

Anders/Santiago procedure, counsel recognized that we have "no 

jurisdiction" to entertain this appeal because Appellant is no longer serving 

2 This is an appeal from denial of PCRA relief. Counsel filed an Anders brief, 

as opposed to a Turner/Finley letter. Generally, we accept an Anders brief 

in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter because an Anders brief provides greater 

protection to the defendant. Here, counsel provided a summary of the 

procedural history and facts, and stated that the instant appeal is frivolous 

because Appellant is not entitled to PCRA relief because his sentence has 

expired. Additionally, counsel stated that he sent a letter to Appellant 

informing him of his rights in connection with counsel's application to 

withdraw. Counsel stated that a copy of said letter was attached to the 

Anders brief and the petition to withdraw. Yet, neither filing provides proof of 

service on Appellant. Nonetheless, Appellant filed pro se a response to 

counsel's brief, which suggests that Appellant received the Anders brief. See 

Appellant Pro Se Response to Anders Brief, 3/20/19, at 1. 

- 3 - 
J -S25014-19 

the underlying sentence. In fact, while we have jurisdiction to entertain the 

instant appeal, we must nonetheless dismiss it because Appellant does not 

meet the PCRA eligibility requirements. 

To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must be either 

"currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the 

crime," "awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the crime," or "serving 

a sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the 

disputed sentence." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i)-(iii). 

Our Supreme Court and this Court have consistently interpreted Section 

9543(a) to require that a PCRA petitioner be serving a sentence while relief is 

being sought. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997); 

Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting that 

"[a]s soon as his sentence is completed, the petitioner becomes ineligible for 

relief, regardless of whether he was serving his sentence when he filed the 

petition"), and Commonwealth v. Matin, 832 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2003) 

("A petitioner is ineligible for relief under the PCRA once the sentence for the 

challenged conviction is completed."). As our Supreme Court explained in 

Ahlborn, the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his 

sentence is required by the plain language of the PCRA statute. Ahlborn, 699 

A.2d at 720. Indeed, to be eligible for relief, a petitioner must be currently 

serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole. Id. To grant relief 

at a time when an appellant is not currently serving such a sentence would be 

to ignore the language of the PCRA. Id. 

- 4 - 
J -S25014-19 

Here, based on our review of the record, Appellant does not meet the 

foregoing eligibility requirements as he had completed his sentence of six 

months' intermediate punishment while this matter was still pending before 

the PCRA court.3 Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed. See 

Ahlborn, supra. 

Counsel's petition to withdraw granted. Appeal dismissed. 

Judgment Entered. 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/8/2019 

3 As noted, the instant PCRA petition was filed on June 7, 2018, and denied 

on December 18, 2018, a few days after he had completed his sentence. 

-5