J

- S54008

- 19

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

v.

CHASE M. RANG

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 67 MDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 18, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill C ounty Criminal Division at

No (s) : CP

- 54

- CR

- 0001229

- 2006 CP

- 54

- CR

- 0001818

- 2009

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2019 Chase M. Rang appeals from the judgment of sentence of one to two years of incarceration followed by three years of probation that was imposed following a probation revocation hearing and a s uccessful motion for reconsideration. Appellant’s counsel, Robert M. Reedy, Esquire, has filed a petition to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We deny counse l’s request to withdraw and remand for counsel to take appropriate action in conformance with our decision. Appellant pled guilty to one count each of criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy, along with five counts each of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by probation supervision. On February 20, 2018, AppellantJ

- S54008

- 19

- 2

-

appeared for a probation revocation hearing. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, Appellant was resentenced to serve t wo to four years of incarceration and a consecutive one year term of probation. Appellant filed a motion to modify sentence, which was granted. On April 18, 2018, the court modified Appellant’s sentence to one to two years of incarceration followed by a three year term of probation.
A pro se “post

- sentence motion appeal,” and request for a Grazier 2 hearing followed. On May 24, 2018, following a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s request to proceed pro se , instructed the clerk of courts
to insure that Appellant’s motion was correctly docketed as a notice of appeal , and ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. In its

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Appellant stipulated to the violations alleged by the prob ation department which included: use of illegal controlled substances and fighting with probation officers. State Parole/Probation Officer Ronald Thompso n testified to [Appellant’s] history of fighting with officers, use of illegal controlled substances and failure to complete drug and alcohol treatment and community service despite given opportunities to do so. According to Officer Thompson, on the day o f the incident leading to the most recent revocation proceedings [Appellant] admitted using heroin and marijuana and tested positive for such use. Further, [Appellant] had resisted arrest. In addition, [Appellant] also possessed illegal drugs that day wh ich Officer Thompson believed were heroin and methamphetamine. Trial Court Opinion, 7/6/18, at 2 n. 1.

2 Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998)

.J

- S54008

- 19

- 3

-

June 4, 2018 order, the trial court also noted that Appellant had included the case caption for CP

- 54

- CR

- 1818

- 2009 3 on his notice of appeal , but had made it clear that he only intended to challenge his conviction at this case . Appellant filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and on July 6, 2018, the trial court filed its opinion. On September 17, 2018, we quashed Appellant’s direct appeal after his notice of appeal was not timely filed. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition seeking the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights, which was granted on November 30, 2018. On January 2 , 2019, Appellant filed a pro se notice of a ppeal, again including CP

- 54

- CR

- 1818

- 2009 in his case caption. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a new Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b) concise statement . In his statement, Appellant referenced the sentence imposed at CP

- 54

- CR

- 1818

- 2009, but only to the extent necessary to challenge how his sentence imposed at this case has been aggregated with the sentence previously impo sed at CP

- 54

- CR

1818

- 2009. He does not contest any aspect of the case listed at that criminal
act ion number. On February 22, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), since appellant filed one notice of appeal that included

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 This case was heard before a different judge and involved separate statutory sexual assault and related charges. On May 10, 2010, that trial court sentenced Appellant to serve two to four years of incarceration consecutive to the sentence of incarceratio n Appellant was already serving at the instant case. As a result of the consecutive sentence imposed, the department of corrections aggregated Appellant’s two sentences.J

- S54008

- 19

- 4

-

two docket numbers. Appella nt did not file a response to our rule to show

cause. On March 13, 2019, the trial court filed its opinion, in which it acknowledged that Appellant had included CP

- 54

- CR

- 1818

- 2009 and that the trial court was not the presiding judge in that case. On May 24, 2019, Appellant filed an application requesting the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. On June 11, 2019, the trial court acceded to Appellant’s request and appointed aforementioned counsel. In this Court, in lieu of an advocate’s bri ef, counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw. This filing triggers specific requirements. Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious examination of the record, counse l finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation thereof. Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court’s attention. Commonwealth v. Woods , 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa.Supe r. 2007). Our Supreme Court has also clarified portions of the Anders procedure: [I]n 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 citation s 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 ofJ

- S54008

- 19

- 5

-

record, controlling case law, and/or statues on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Santiago , supra at 361. If counsel has met these obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Id . at 354 n.5. Counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief does not subs tantially comply with the technical requirements set forth above. Counsel has set forth a limited procedural history with no factual summary. Additionally, while counsel vaguely identifies three issues that arguably support the appeal, he has failed to include an analys is of any of them. Instead, counsel concludes that the Walker decision requires the court to quash Appellant’s appeal. Anders brief at 8. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that Walker necessitates quashal here. From our independent review of the record, it is clear that Appellant’s appeal relate s only to CP

- 54

- CR

- 1229

- 2006. Therefore, although Appellant filed a single notice of appeal listing two docket numbers, quashal is not required because Appellant’s cont ention s concern only to the April 18, 2018 order that is the subject of this appeal. See Commonwealth v. Sayles , 1365 WDA 2018, 2019 WL 2353469, at *3 (Pa.Super. June 4, 2019) (non

precedential decision) (holding that Walker did not apply to appeal involving
is sues only related to one of the two docket numbers at issue). As such, we cannot conclude that counsel met his obligations because of his categoricalJ

- S54008

- 19

- 6

-

determination that this appeal must be quashed. Therefore, we deny

c ounsel’ s petition to withdraw and re mand with instructions for counsel to either file an advocate’s brief within 30 days or another Anders brief and petition seeking to withdraw within 30 days of the date of this memorandum that complies with the requirements articulated above. See Santiago , supra at 361. Petition to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.