J-S14007-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS K. BAKER, SR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 783 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 29, 2021

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

No(s): CP-61-CR-0000549-2020

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: August 3, 2022

Thomas K. Baker, Sr., appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

after he pleaded guilty to failure to comply with registration requirements. 

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.2(a)(1). Baker’s counsel has filed a Petition for Leave 

to Withdraw as Counsel and an Anders brief.1 We affirm the judgment of 

sentence and grant counsel’s Petition.

Baker, a convicted sex offender, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to 

one count of failure to register, a third-degree felony. In exchange, the 

Commonwealth agreed to recommend a two-year minimum sentence. Trial 

Court Opinion, 12/29/21, at 1. Baker acknowledged that the Commonwealth 

would recommend a two-year minimum sentence during his guilty plea 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S14007-22

- 2 -

hearing. See N.T., 12/20/20, Guilty Plea Hearing, at 3. The Plea Agreement 

Form also specified that the Commonwealth would recommend a two-year 

minimum sentence. See Plea Agreement Form, 12/17/20, at 1.

At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth argued that Baker’s

registration had lapsed for approximately six months before the police located 

Baker. N.T., Sentencing Hearing, 3/29/21, at 6. The court stated it had been 

informed by a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) and observed that 

Baker had previously been convicted of failure to register. Id. at 2, 5, 9. The 

court sentenced Baker to two to seven years’ incarceration, as the 

Commonwealth recommended in accordance with the plea agreement.

Baker filed a post-sentence motion arguing that his sentence is 

manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable. The court denied the motion. 

After obtaining leave via the Post Conviction Relief Act to file a nunc pro tunc

notice of appeal, Baker appealed. 

As stated above, Baker’s counsel has filed an Anders brief and Petition 

for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel. We must assess counsel’s withdraw request 

before deciding whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v. 

Redmond, 273 A.3d 1247, 1252 (Pa.Super. 2022). 

Counsel seeking to withdraw must petition the Court for leave to do so, 

asserting that “after making a conscientious examination of the record, 

counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous.” Id. (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en 

banc)). Counsel must also file an Anders brief in which counsel (1) 
J-S14007-22

- 3 -

summarizes the facts of the case, (2) refers to anything in the record that 

might support an appeal, (3) sets forth the conclusion that an appeal would 

be frivolous, and (4) explains counsel’s reasons for so concluding. Id. (citing 

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

furnish a copy of the brief to the appellant and advise the appellant of his right 

to retain private counsel or proceed pro se to raise additional arguments. Id.

Counsel’s petition states she has reviewed all available transcripts, 

pleadings, and other materials from the file, has communicated with Baker, 

and has concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel’s Anders brief 

discusses the facts and procedural history of the case, summarizes the issue 

Baker wishes to raise, and sets forth counsel’s reasons for concluding the 

appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s letter to Baker states she enclosed a copy of the 

Anders brief and advises him of his right to retain new counsel or act on his 

own behalf, raising additional points to this Court. Counsel has met the above 

requirements, and we therefore turn to whether the appeal is, as counsel 

alleges, wholly frivolous.

The Anders brief presents one issue: “The sentence imposed in this 

case was manifestly abusive and clearly unreasonable in that it failed to take 

into account the fact that [Baker’s] offense was not a crime of violence, but 

rather a crime of failure to report.” Anders Br. at 3. Counsel explains that 

Baker believes his sentence was unduly harsh because his crime did not 

involve direct harm to any individual. Id. at 8. According to counsel, Baker 

argues his issue raises a substantial question that his sentence is inappropriate 
J-S14007-22

- 4 -

under the Sentencing Code2 because “[a] lighter sentence, with a lesser period 

of confinement, could achieve the goals of the protection of the public and the 

rehabilitative needs of [Baker].” Id. at 5-6. Baker argues the court should 

have imposed a “county sentence” so that he “could have been supervised 

and participated in various programs for sex offenders[.]” Id. at 7. Baker 

claims he did not deliberately fail to register as a sex offender but had trouble 

finding a place to live due to his criminal history, was moving at the time he 

was required to register, could not find a notary, and was impeded by the 

Covid-19 pandemic. Id.

We agree that an appeal premised on the discretionary aspects of 

Baker’s sentence would be wholly frivolous. We review a sentence for an abuse 

of discretion, such as where the application of the Sentencing Guidelines would 

be clearly unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Rominger, 199 A.3d 964, 

970 (Pa.Super. 2018); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). Even assuming Baker’s 

allegations pose a substantial question that his sentence is not appropriate 

under the Sentencing Code,3there is no reasonable basis in the record on 

which to argue that the trial court abused its discretion, for the following 

reasons.

____________________________________________

2 Counsel has provided a statement in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

3 We do not entertain an appeal based on the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence unless the issue raises a substantial question that the sentence is 

inappropriate under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 

A.3d 441, 467 (Pa.Super. 2018). 
J-S14007-22

- 5 -

First, Baker’s argument that his sentence was not individualized is 

frivolous. Because the court had a PSI, “it is presumed that the court is aware 

of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the 

court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.”

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 638 (Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned 

up). While Baker characterizes his offense as victimless and claims the 

protection of the public and his rehabilitative needs warrant a more lenient 

sentence, the trial court pointed out that Baker has previously been convicted 

of this same offense and yet allowed his registration to lapse again for 

approximately six months. Finally, the court imposed the very sentence the 

Commonwealth recommended in accordance with its agreement with Baker: 

a two-year minimum sentence. We discern no reasonable basis on which to 

contend that the sentence was an abuse of discretion.

Our independent review discloses no non-frivolous issues that Baker 

could raise on direct appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence 

and grant counsel’s Petition for Leave to Withdraw.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition for Leave to Withdraw as 

Counsel granted.
J-S14007-22

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/3/2022