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### -S25014-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 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 

### theCourt ofCommon 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.: 

### FILEDAUGUST 

### 08, 

### 2019 Appellant, Jay Michael 

### Englehart, appeals 

### from the 

### order entered on December 18, 2018 in 

### theCourtofCommon Pleasof

### the 39thJudicial 

### District, Franklin 

### County Branch, which denied his 

### request 

### for collateral 

### relief under the Post

### Conviction ReliefAct 

### (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 

### withthe Commonwealth. Pursuantto 

### the plea,

### Appellant pled 

### guiltyto 

### drivingJ

### -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

### theday

### ofsentencing, March 28, 

### 2018,

### Appellantsoughtto

### 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 

### forJune 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, 

### ineffectiveassistance of

### counsel.' Afterappointing counsel

### forAppellant, 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. OnJanuary 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. 

## -2J

### -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

### thesame day,

### Appellant pro se filed an 

### answerto counsel's

### Anders brief. We

### first review counsel's requestto 

### 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 

### withoutfirst 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

2This 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 

### Andersbrief and

### the 

### petition to 

### withdraw.Yet, 

### neitherfiling provides 

### proofof service on 

### Appellant. Nonetheless, 

### Appellant filed 

### pro se a response to counsel's 

### brief,which suggests

### thatAppellantreceived 

### 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 

### meetthe 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 

### forthe 

### crime,"or 

### "serving

a sentence which 

### must expire beforethe person 

### may commenceserving 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 

### ineligiblefor relief underthe 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 ofthe 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

### currentlyserving such a sentencewould be to ignore the language ofthe PCRA. 

### Id.

- 4 -J

### -S25014-19
Here, based on 

### our review ofthe record, 

### Appellant does not 

### meet the foregoing 

### eligibility requirements as he had 

### completed his sentence of six 

### months' intermediate punishmentwhile 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