J-S42026-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

DANIEL JAMES ROACH 

 Appellant No. 2005 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 22, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000351-2013 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 

A jury found Daniel Roach guilty of flight to avoid apprehension1, and 

the trial court sentenced him to 36-72 months’ imprisonment. Roach filed a 

timely notice of appeal, but his counsel advised that he would file an 

Anders2 brief stating that there were no non-frivolous issues to raise on 

appeal. Counsel subsequently filed an Anders brief in this Court along with 

a motion to withdraw as counsel. We affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion 

to withdraw. 

While on parole from a New York felony conviction, Roach left New 

York and traveled to Bradford, Pennsylvania. A New York court issued an 

arrest warrant for Roach for leaving New York while on parole. New York 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 5126. 

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
J-S42026-14 

- 2 - 

parole authorities transmitted the warrant to Bradford police, who arrested 

Roach with the assistance of a Pennsylvania parole officer. A jury found 

Roach guilty of flight to avoid apprehension. Certified Record, Item 13 

(verdict slip). The verdict slip also inquired whether Roach’s crime in New 

York was a felony or a misdemeanor. The jury answered that it was a 

felony. Id. 

On November 22, 2013, the trial court imposed sentence. On 

December 16, 2013, Roach filed a timely notice of appeal. On December 30, 

2013, Roach’s counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) statement that he 

intended to file an Anders brief. 

In this court, Roach’s counsel filed an Anders brief and an application 

to withdraw from representation pursuant to Anders and its Pennsylvania 

counterpart, Commonwealth v. Santiago.

3

 Before addressing Roach’s 

brief, we will first pass on the application to withdraw. Commonwealth v. 

Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super.2007) (en banc). 

Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders, 

counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements established by our 

Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief 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 

____________________________________________ 

3

 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.2009). 
J-S42026-14 

- 3 - 

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. 

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Counsel must also provide a copy of the 

Anders brief to the appellant, together with a letter that advises the 

appellant of his or her right to “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; 

(2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant 

deems worthy of the court’s attention in addition to the points raised by 

counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 

353 (Pa.Super.2007). Substantial compliance with these requirements is 

sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 

(Pa.Super.2007). “After establishing that the antecedent requirements have 

been met, this Court must then make an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.” 

Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super.2006). 

 Here, counsel stated in his motion to withdraw that he reviewed the 

record and determined there were no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. 

He explained that he notified Roach of his withdrawal request, supplied him 

with a copy of the Anders brief, and sent him a letter explaining his rights 

to proceed pro se or with substitute counsel and to raise any additional 

points worthy of the court’s attention. See Letter to Roach, April 11, 2014, 

attached as Appendix to the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The Anders

brief itself summarizes the facts and procedural history of the case with 
J-S42026-14 

- 4 - 

citations to the record, refers to evidence of record that might arguably 

support the issue raised on appeal, analyzes the evidence in light of 

Pennsylvania law, and concludes that the appeal lacks arguable merit. 

Accordingly, counsel has substantially complied with the procedural 

requisites of Anders and Santiago. 

Counsel’s Anders brief identifies one issue for consideration: “Was the 

evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict?” Anders Brief, pp. 3-6. 

We agree with counsel that it was. 

 The following evidence was adduced during Roach’s jury trial. On April 

15, 2013, Agent Powers of the New York State Division of Parole advised 

Bradford Assistant Chief Michael Ward that New York authorities had issued 

an arrest warrant for Roach based on Roach’s violation of New York parole. 

Roach was on parole from a New York conviction for a class C felony. Agent 

Powers advised that Roach would be found at 40 Pleasant Street in Bradford. 

N.T., 11/13/13 (“Tr.”), pp. 6-11. 

The trial court admitted into evidence a certificate of conviction from 

New York stating that Roach had a Class C felony conviction “from the 

Allegheny County Court[,] Belmont, New York.” Tr., pp. 10-11. 

Agent Powers faxed the arrest warrant to Assistant Chief Ward. 

Assistant Chief Ward and Officer David Feely, both of whom were in full 

uniform, drove a marked police car to 40 Pleasant Street. Tr., pp. 6-11. 

Two other officers also visited this address: Pennsylvania Parole Officer 
J-S42026-14 

- 5 - 

Hartman, who wore plain clothes with a badge hanging on a chain around 

his neck and a bright yellow taser on his belt, and Bradford Police Officer 

Lama, who wore plain clothes and a badge and also had a firearm and vest. 

Tr., pp. 11-13. 

Assistant Chief Ward and Officer Lama knocked on the door and 

announced “police”, while Officer Feely and Agent Hartman covered the front 

and back of the residence. After knocking, Assistant Chief Ward and Officer 

Lama heard a loud banging sound inside the residence for about 30 seconds 

which sounded like someone banging into an interior wall and/or crawling in 

between the floors. When the noise subsided, Roach’s wife, Jennifer Dinch, 

opened the door, and the officers stated that they had a warrant for Roach. 

Dinch permitted them to enter and search the house, but the officers could 

not find Roach. Tr., pp. 13-17, 32-35. 

During the house search, Parole Agent Hartman, who was still outside 

the house, observed Roach burst out of the basement door. Agent Hartman 

yelled at Roach to stop, chased him across Pleasant Street into a yard, and 

tackled him as other officers converged to help. Roach attempted to run 

around Officer Feely during the chase. Feely struck Roach with his taser and 

yelled that he was under arrest, but the taser wires did not penetrate him. 

After Roach was tackled, he said "I'm done" and added that he was not 

ready to go back. Tr, pp. 17-21. When Assistant Chief Ward arrived at the 

scene, he recognized Roach from prior meetings. Tr., pp. 28, 43-53, 63-70. 
J-S42026-14 

- 6 - 

Roach testified that he had not been living at 40 Pleasant Street prior 

to the incident in question but returned there because of death threats 

against his wife and her son. Tr., pp. 78-79. Roach’s wife, Dinch, testified 

that she had received threats and had notified the police, but that to her 

knowledge, the police had not investigated the matter. Tr., p. 103. Roach 

claimed that he thought the police officers were actually men coming to kill 

his wife, so he ran away from the house to deflect the mens’ attention from 

his wife. He admitted that he was in violation of New York parole by being in 

Pennsylvania. 

When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows: 

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at 

trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there 

is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In 

applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence 

and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In 

addition, we note that the facts and circumstances 

established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every 

possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a 

defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless 

the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter

of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the

combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain 

its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial 

evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire 

record must be evaluated and all evidence actually 

received must be considered. Finally, the [trier] of fact 

while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 
J-S42026-14 

- 7 - 

weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part 

or none of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011). 

 18 Pa.C.S. § 5126, entitled “Flight To Avoid Apprehension,” provides in 

relevant part: 

A person who willfully conceals himself or moves or 

travels within or outside this Commonwealth with the 

intent to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment 

commits a felony of the third degree when the crime 

which he has been charged with or has been 

convicted of is a felony and commits a misdemeanor 

of the second degree when the crime which he has 

been charged with or has been convicted of is a 

misdemeanor. 

Id. The evidence demonstrates that (1) Roach was convicted of a felony in 

New York; (2) he traveled to this Commonwealth from New York while on 

parole for this felony; (3) he concealed himself in his wife’s residence in this 

Commonwealth to avoid punishment or apprehension relating to his New 

York conviction; and (4) he attempted to escape, i.e., “move or travel” 

within this Commonwealth by fleeing from his wife’s residence when 

Bradford police arrived. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Roach’s 

conviction under section 5126. 

Finally, our independent review of the record has revealed no nonfrivolous claims that Roach could have raised, and we agree with counsel 

that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

sentence. 
J-S42026-14 

- 8 - 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw is 

granted. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/9/2014