J

- S07022

- 23

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

v.

CHRISTOPHER BETANCOURTH

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1997 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 13, 2017 ,

i n the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County , Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 39

- CR

- 0004143

- 2016, CP

- 39

- CR

- 0004144

- 2016, CP

- 39

- CR

- 0004145

- 2016,

CP

- 39

- CR

- 0004272

- 2016

.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: F ILED MAY 19 , 2023 Christopher B etancourth appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to several offenses . Additionally, Betancourth’s
counsel asked to withdraw representation and filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon review, we deny counsel’s petition
with instructions

. On July 26, 2017, Betancourth plead guilty in four separate cases to person not to possess a firearm, robbery (two cases) , and receiving stolen property. The trial court sentence d Betancourth to an aggregate term of 6 1/2
to 14 years’ incarceration. Betancourt h did not file a post

- sentence motion or an appeal.J

- S07022

- 23

- 2

-

On July 12, 2018, Betancourth filed a Post Conviction Relief Act 1 petition. The court appointed counse l , who filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to a Turn er/ F inley letter , which was granted. Thereafter, the PCRA court held a hearing on the merits and denied the PCRA petition on November 21, 2018.
On December 7, 2018, Betancourth filed a post

- sentence motion . In part, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. On December 11, 2018, the trial
court denied this motion . That same day , Betancourth appealed the court’s order denying him relief under the PCRA. On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded because the court held an evidentiary hearing on the merits , and Betancourth was entitled to have

cou n sel represent him at the PCRA hearing or be colloquized on the record to
waiv e his right to counsel and proceed pro se
. Upon remand , counsel was appointed , an amende d petition was filed , and a second evidentiary hearing was held. T he court granted PCRA relief and
reinstated Betancourth’s direct appeal rights.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 42 Pa.C.S. A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S07022

- 23

- 3

-

Betancourth filed this timely appeal. 2 Counsel filed an Anders brief with
this Court but did not file a separ ate petition to withdraw

. Betancourth did not retain independent counsel or file a pro se response to the Anders brief.
W hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Garang , 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010)

. Pursuant to Anders , when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous and

w ishes to withdraw from representation, counsel must do the following: (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief r eferring to any issues that might arguably support the appeal, but which does not resemble a no

- merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
2 The notice of appeal lists all four trial court docket numbers, in contravention of Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that an appellant is required to file separate notice s of appeal when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one trial court docket). However, the PCRA court’s July 1, 2022 , order advised that “[ Betancourth ] is granted leave to file an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.” (emphasis added). In Commonwealth v. Stansbury , 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019), this Court declined to quash an appeal where the trial court’s order dismiss ed two PCRA petitions, and the trial court, in advising appellant of his rights, referred to a singular notice of appeal. Moreover, in Commonwealth v. Larkin , 235 A.3d 350, 354 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc), this Court held that “we may overlook the requirem ents of Walker where [. . .] a breakdown occurs in the court system, and a defendant is misinformed or misled regarding his appellate rights.” Larkin , 235 A.3d at 354 . We therefore decline to quash Betancourth’s appeal for this procedural defect

.J

- S07022

- 23

- 4

-

counsel, proceed pro se , or raise any additional points [the defendant] deems worthy of this Court's attention.

Commonwealth v. Edwards , 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). In Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court addressed the second requi rement of Anders , i.e ., the contents of an Anders brief, and required that the brief: (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 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. Once counsel has satisfied the Anders requirements, it is then this Court’s responsibility “to conduct a simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v. Dempster , 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018). Instantly, although counsel filed an Anders brief, he did not file a separate petition to withdraw representation with this C ourt

. Instead, counsel included his petition to withdraw as a document with in his brief. N evertheless , we may treat this as a request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v.
Fischetti , 669 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1995). (explai ning “the more desirableJ

- S07022

- 23

- 5

-

practice would be to submit a separate withdrawal request to the court”). Therein, c ounsel indicated that he “determined that there are no meritorious appellate issues

. ” 3 Further, the Anders brief substantially comports with the requirements set forth by our Supreme Court in Santiago

. Finally, although counsel included a copy of the letter that he sent to
Betancourth stating counsel’s intention to seek permission to withdraw and advising Be tancourth of his right to proceed pro se or retain new counsel , the
letter does not inform Betancourth that he may raise additional points

. Additionally , the certificate of service attached to the Anders brief does not
indicate that it was sent to Betanco urt h but instead lists another individual’s name. And, although the Anders brief indicate s that it was sent to
Betancourth and that it was to be enclosed with the letter , the letter does not indicate that there were any enclosures. Thus, we cannot be sure that
Betancourth was actually provided with a copy of the brief and petition to
withdraw as required

. Acco r dingly, as counsel has not complied with the procedural requirements for withdrawing from representation, we are compelled to deny counsel’s request to withdraw and remand this matter with instructions to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
3 We remind c ounsel to state in his petition that, “after a conscientious examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v . Woods , 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (emphasis added)

.J

- S07022

- 23

- 6

-

ensure Betancourth’s constitutional rights are afforded to him . Counsel shall either comply with Anders or file an advocate’s b rief on Betancourth’s behalf within 30 days of this decision.
Petition to withdraw denied

. Jurisdiction retained.