J-S81023-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DESEREA LITA NOEL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1366 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2018

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

No(s): CP-28-CR-0000403-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DESEREA LITA NOEL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1367 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2018

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

No(s): CP-28-CR-0000826-2017

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2019

Appellant, Deserea Lita Noel, appeals from the July 18, 2018 Judgments

of Sentence entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas following 

a hearing. Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of her violation of 

probation (“VOP”) sentences. Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders1 Brief, 

together with a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. After careful review, we 

____________________________________________

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S81023-18

- 2 -

affirm Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence and grant counsel’s Petition to 

Withdraw.

On March 23, 2016, Appellant entered a guilty plea at docket number 

403-2016 to one count of Retail Theft.2 The court sentenced Appellant to one 

year of intermediate punishment, 50 hours of community service, and 

attendance at a shoplifting class. 

On August 5, 2016, the court found Appellant in violation of her 

intermediate punishment sentence. The court granted Appellant a medical 

furlough due to her pregnancy, after which it sentenced Appellant on 

September 14, 2016, to 6 to 23 months’ incarceration followed by 24 months’ 

probation. On October 7, 2016, Appellant was paroled. 

On February 2, 2017, while on parole, Appellant was involved in an 

incident that resulted in police charging her at docket number 826-2017 with, 

inter alia, Conspiracy to Commit Simple Assault.3 It also resulted in Appellant 

violating her parole. The VOP court, thus, resentenced her to a period of 

incarceration on March 27, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the court again paroled 

Appellant. 

On October 25, 2017, Appellant entered a guilty plea at a docket number

826-2017 to the Conspiracy charge. The court sentenced Appellant at this 

docket number to 24 months of intermediate punishment, with immediate 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
J-S81023-18

- 3 -

release to a drug treatment program. The Good Wolf Treatment Court 

admitted Appellant into its program.

On July 18, 2018, Appellant admitted to violating the terms of her 

supervision by being unsuccessfully discharged from the Good Wolf Treatment 

Court program and for twice testing positive for unlawful substances. 

Following a hearing, the VOP court revoked Appellant’s parole and sentenced 

Appellant to a term of 2 to 5 years’ incarceration for her Retail Theft conviction 

and a concurrent term of 1 to 2 years’ incarceration for her Conspiracy to 

Commit Simple Assault conviction. 

Appellant did not file a Post-Sentence Motion. She did, however, timely 

appeal from each of her Judgments of Sentence.4 Both Appellant and the trial 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On October 31, 2018, counsel filed the Anders Brief and Petition to 

Withdraw as Counsel. Appellant did not file a pro se or counselled response 

to either the Brief or the Petition.

As a preliminary matter, we address counsel’s Petition to Withdraw. 

“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits 

of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” 

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted). In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to 

____________________________________________

4 This Court consolidated Appellant’s appeal sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
J-S81023-18

- 4 -

Anders, our Supreme Court has determined that counsel must meet certain 

requirements, including: 

(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.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). 

In the instant case, counsel has complied with all of the requirements 

of Anders as articulated in Santiago. Additionally, counsel confirms that he 

sent Appellant a copy of the Anders Brief, as well as a letter explaining to 

Appellant that she has the right to proceed pro se or the right to retain new 

counsel. See Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super 

2005) (describing notice requirements). Counsel appended a copy of the 

letter to his Petition to Withdraw.

Because counsel has satisfied the above requirements, it is now this 

Court’s duty to conduct an independent review of the record to discern if there 

are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel and render an 

independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. 

See Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en 

banc) (noting that Anders requires the reviewing court to “review ‘the case’ 
J-S81023-18

- 5 -

as presented in the entire record with consideration first of issues raised by 

counsel.”).

We first address the issue raised by counsel in the Anders Brief:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sentenced 

[Appellant] to a sentence of 24 months to 60 months in a state 

correctional institution in case 403-2016 and concurrently to a 

sentence of 12 months to 24 months in a state correctional 

institution in case 826-2017[?]

Anders Brief at 8 (some capitalization omitted).

Instantly, Appellant claims that the court’s imposition of a sentence of 

state incarceration was manifestly unreasonable. Anders Brief at 13. She, 

thus, challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence. See 

Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 847-52 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

(considering a challenge to a trial court’s decision to commit an offender to a 

state prison instead of a county facility as a challenge to the discretionary 

aspects of the sentence). A challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing is not automatically reviewable as a matter of right. 

Commonwealth v. Hunter, 768 A.2d 1136, 1144 (Pa. Super. 2001). Prior 

to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:

We conduct a four[-]part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 

and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at 

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see 

[Pa.R.Crim.P. 720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal 

defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial 

question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under 

the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).
J-S81023-18

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations 

omitted).

In this case, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and her Brief 

includes a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) Statement. However, Appellant failed to raise 

her challenge to the discretionary aspects of her VOP sentences at the 

sentencing hearing or in a Post-Sentence Motion.5 Thus, Appellant has waived 

this claim. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 

2010) (reiterating that “[o]bjections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence 

are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a 

motion to modify the sentence imposed”).

Judgments of Sentence affirmed. Petition to Withdraw as Counsel 

granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/25/2019

____________________________________________

5 Prior to the VOP court imposing Appellant’s VOP sentences, her counsel 

informed the court that she “would very much like to be able to be kept 

local[.]” N.T. Sentencing, 7/18/18, at 4. However, Appellant did not 

challenge the court’s VOP sentences on the record after the court imposed 

them. 
J-S81023-18

- 7 -