J. S 6 6 0 45 /1 8

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
v. : : IVAN BOLSHAKOV , : No. 1063 E DA 20 18
: Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 5, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No. CP

- 23

- CR

- 0001834

- 2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN , P. J., PANELLA , J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 13 , 2019
Ivan Bolshakov appeals from the March 5, 2018 judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County after a jury

convicted him of simple assault , retail theft, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. 1 The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of incarceration

of one day to two years less one day on the simple assault conviction , followed
by a two

- year probationary term for the remaining convictions

. 2 We rema nd.

The record reflects that following imposition of sentence, appellant did
not file post

- sentence motions. Appellant did, however, file a timely notice of

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(4) and 3929(a)(1), and 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(32), respectively.

2 We note that at the time of sentencing, the trial court found appellant eligible for parole and immediately paroled appellant.J. S 6 6 0 45 /1 8

- 2

-

appeal. The trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In lieu of filing a

Rule 1925(b) statement, and in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4),

counsel filed a statement of intent to file an Anders brief. 3 The trial court
then filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion stating that i t did not identify any issue of
arguable merit, but that in accordance with Anders ’ procedure, it would await

this court’s determination. (Trial court opinion, 6/26/18 at 2.)
Upon review of counsel’s Anders brief and petition to withdraw, we

concluded th at counsel failed to comply with Anders and denied counsel’s
petition

. Commonwealth v. Bolshakov , No. 1063 EDA 2018, unpublished

memorandum (Pa.Super. filed February 6, 20 19 )

. We instructed counsel to

file either a compliant Anders b rief or an advocate’s brief within 30 days , at

which time we afforded the Commonwealth 30 days to respond. Appellant’s
counsel timely filed an advocate ’ s brief , and the Commonwealth filed a timely
response. In his brief, appellant raises the following issue:

The Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence that [appellant] committed the offense of Simple Assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(4) because the circumstances of the case and his limited understanding of the English language raises doubt that he had the r equisite mens rea to intentionally or knowingly commit the acts charged.
Appellant’s brief at 7.

3 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).J. S 6 6 0 45 /1 8

- 3

-

Because we do not have the benefit of the t r i al court’s reasoning in
relation to the sufficiency of the evidence challenge that appellant raises, we

remand t his case for the preparation of a Rule 1925(a) opinion to be filed
within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum

.
Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/13/19