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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 County 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 successful 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 counsel’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, Appellant 
J-S54008-19

- 2 -

appeared for a probation revocation hearing.1 At the conclusion of the 

hearing, Appellant was resentenced to serve two 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 Grazier2

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 probation department 

which included:

use of illegal controlled substances and fighting with probation 

officers. State Parole/Probation Officer Ronald Thompson 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 of 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 which 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-1818-20093 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 appeal, 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 imposed at CP-54-CR1818-2009. He does not contest any aspect of the case listed at that criminal 

action 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 incarceration 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. Appellant 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 brief, 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, counsel 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.Super. 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 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 
J-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 substantially 

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 analysis 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 relates 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 contentions 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) (nonprecedential decision) (holding that Walker did not apply to appeal involving 

issues only related to one of the two docket numbers at issue). As such, we 

cannot conclude that counsel met his obligations because of his categorical 
J-S54008-19

- 6 -

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

counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand 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.