J-S28005-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TRAVIS ASHLEY RAGER,

Appellant No. 1561 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 19, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0001060-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and LAZARUS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2015

Travis Rager appeals from the judgment of sentence of five to ten 

years imprisonment that the trial court imposed after Appellant tendered an 

open guilty plea to one count of burglary. Appellate counsel has filed a 

petition seeking to withdraw from representation and a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. 

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), which govern a withdrawal from 

representation on direct appeal. We grant the petition to withdraw and 

affirm.

Appellant was charged with burglary of residence while a person was 

present, theft by unlawful taking, and driving while his driving privileges 

were suspended. On the morning of October 24, 2013, Appellant entered 
J-S28005-15

- 2 -

the home of Sharon Sue Myers located on 1661⁄2 West King Street 

Littlestown. Appellant knew the victim and was aware that she was not 

present at her home when he entered it. Ms. Myers arrived at her residence 

at approximately 11:15 a.m. and caught Appellant “removing money from 

her master bedroom closet.” Incident Report, Littlestown Police 

Department, 10/24/13, at 2. She asked Appellant “what he was doing and 

how he could do this to her at which point he did leave the residence in a 

black sedan.” Id. 

Ms. Myers called the police, and Littlestown Police Officer Gary 

Gearhart responded to the call. While he was taking information from the 

victim, Appellant called her. Ms. Myers demanded that Appellant return the 

stolen items, and Appellant told her that he would comply with that demand. 

When Appellant returned to Ms. Myers’ home, Officer Gearhart arrested him. 

Appellant had two necklaces that belonged to the victim in his car. After the 

administration and waiver of Miranda rights, Appellant admitted the 

following. He and Ms. Myers left her residence together that morning, and 

he was aware that she had a doctor’s appointment. After leaving, Appellant 

immediately circled back to Ms. Myers’ home, entered it, and went to her 

closet to take money since he was aware that she kept cash at that location. 

Appellant also admitted to taking the two necklaces found in his vehicle. 
J-S28005-15

- 3 -

In exchange for the Commonwealth’s agreement not to seek a 

mandatory minimum sentence applicable to repeat offenders, Appellant 

tendered an open guilty plea on March 31, 2014, to the burglary charge, 

which was graded as a first-degree felony. The transcript of that proceeding 

is not contained in the record so we have garnered the pertinent facts from 

the incident report. 

The matter proceeded to sentencing on August 19, 2014. The court 

had the benefit of a presentence report, and the guidelines recommended a 

sentence of sixty to seventy-two months imprisonment. The victim spoke at 

the proceeding. She expressed feelings of anger and betrayal at Appellant’s 

actions. She noted that she had welcomed him into her home for social 

gatherings and that he betrayed her trust and that of her family. 

Additionally, Ms. Myers reported that Appellant took other, unrecovered 

jewelry consisting of “my wedding and my engagement ring along with an 

emerald that was grandmother’s, two things that were very important to 

me.” N.T. Sentencing, 8/19/14, at 4. 

The court ensured that there were no corrections to the presentence 

report, which revealed that Appellant had committed ten burglaries in 2004 

and 2005. Id. at 5. Defense counsel informed the court about Appellant’s 

mental health issues and presented a mental health witness to explain them 

in detail. Appellant exercised his right of allocution. 
J-S28005-15

- 4 -

The court weighed Appellant’s psychiatric problems when imposing its 

sentence, explaining that, absent those problems, it would have imposed the 

maximum sentence. It articulated: “The Court notes that the Defendant has 

significant mental health issues; however, balances those issues against the 

need for public safety and the safety of the Defendant. The Defendant has a 

significant prior criminal record and was provided an opportunity to address 

those issues[.]” Id. at 18. The court elected to sentence at the lowest end 

of the standard range, which was five to ten years imprisonment. 

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, and, upon 

its denial, this appeal. As noted, counsel has filed a petition to withdraw. 

Before we address the question raised on appeal, we first must resolve 

appellate counsel’s request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 

A.3d 1030 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). There are procedural and briefing 

requirements imposed upon an attorney who seeks to withdraw on appeal. 

The procedural mandates are that counsel must

1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after 

making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has 

determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy 

of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that 

he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise 

additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the 

court's attention.

Id. at 1032 (citation omitted). 
J-S28005-15

- 5 -

Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements. In a 

withdrawal petition, counsel indicates that he reviewed the record and 

concluded that this appeal was frivolous. Attached to the petition is a letter 

to Appellant. Counsel forwarded a copy of the petition to withdraw and 

appellate brief to Appellant. Counsel informed Appellant in the letter that 

Appellant had the right to retain new counsel or to proceed to represent 

himself and raise any additional points that he deemed worthy of this Court’s 

attention. 

We now examine whether the brief comports with the Supreme Court’s 

dictates in Santiago, supra, which provides that

in 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 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.

Cartrette, supra at 1032 (quoting Santiago, supra at 361). 

Counsel’s brief is compliant with Santiago. It sets forth the factual 

and procedural history of this case and establishes why Appellant’s issue 

lacks legal merit. We now examine the merits of the issue raised and, after 

reviewing that contention, we will independently review the record in order 

to determine if counsel’s assessment of the frivolity of the present appeal is 
J-S28005-15

- 6 -

correct. Cartrette, supra. The issue raised is, “Did the sentencing court 

manifestly abuse its discretion when it sentenced Appellant to serve a 5-10 

year SCI sentence as the result of a burglary conviction?” Appellant’s brief 

at 4. Appellant’s position is that the sentence should have been below the 

mitigated range in light of these facts: 1) he had a significant history of 

mental illness; 2) he was not taking his medication when he committed the 

crime; 3) he cooperated with police and returned the necklaces that he 

stole; and 4) he and the victim were friends. Appellant's contention relates 

to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

 A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must 

be considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to 

pursue such a claim is not absolute. Two requirements must be 

met before we will review this challenge on its merits. First, an 

appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence. Second, the appellant must 

show that there is a substantial question that the sentence 

imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The 

determination of whether a particular issue raises a substantial 

question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to 

establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions 

by the trial court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or 

contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing 

process.

Commonwealth v. Treadway, 104 A.3d 597, 599 (Pa.Super. 2014)

(citations omitted). 

In this case, Appellant’s brief contains the concise statement, but we 

are unable to discern the existence of a substantial question. Appellant does 
J-S28005-15

- 7 -

not question that the trial court considered the mitigating factors presented 

to it. Indeed, the court expressed that those factors had induced it to 

reduce the sentence significantly in that it planned to impose the maximum 

sentence for a first-degree felony, i.e., twenty years. 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(1) 

(maximum sentence for first-degree felony is twenty years). Instead, the 

court imposed a sentence of one-half that amount. It is apparent that 

Appellant is merely asking this Court to re-weigh the sentencing factors. It 

is settled that a challenge to the “weight that the trial court gave to the 

various factors that it considered in sentencing” and a request that we reweigh them in the manner requested by the defendant “does not raise a 

substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 

(Pa.Super. 2014). Hence, we cannot accept this appeal from the 

discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence. 

As required by the case authority, we have conducted an independent 

review of the record and have concluded that there are no non-frivolous 

issues that can be raised in this appeal. Hence, we affirm the judgment of 

sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. 

Petition of Sean A. Mott, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel granted. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S28005-15

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/12/2015