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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

in 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.: FILED MAY 19, 2023

Christopher Betancourth 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 sentenced Betancourth to an aggregate term of 6 1/2 

to 14 years’ incarceration. Betancourth did not file a post-sentence motion or 

an appeal. 
J-S07022-23

- 2 -

On July 12, 2018, Betancourth filed a Post Conviction Relief Act1 petition. 

The court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 

pursuant to a Turner/Finley 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 

counsel represent him at the PCRA hearing or be colloquized on the record to 

waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se.

Upon remand, counsel was appointed, an amended petition was filed,

and a second evidentiary hearing was held. The 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 separate petition to withdraw. Betancourth did 

not retain independent counsel or file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

When 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 

wishes 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 referring 

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 notices 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 dismissed 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 requirements 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 requirement 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 Court. Instead, counsel 

included his petition to withdraw as a document within his brief. Nevertheless, 

we may treat this as a request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. 

Fischetti, 669 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1995). (explaining “the more desirable 
J-S07022-23

- 5 -

practice would be to submit a separate withdrawal request to the court”).

Therein, counsel 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 Betancourth 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 Betancourth but instead lists another individual’s 

name. And, although the Anders brief indicates 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. 

Accordingly, 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 counsel 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 brief on Betancourth’s behalf

within 30 days of this decision. 

Petition to withdraw denied. Jurisdiction retained.