J

- S12033

- 19

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHARLES MICHAEL KONCSLER,

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1548 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 24, 2018 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 54

- CR

- 0002000

- 2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2019
Charles Michael Koncsler (“Koncsler”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed following his conviction of delivery of a controlled

substance. Additionally, on January 8, 2019, Koncsler’s counsel, Kent D.

Watkins, Esq uire (“Attorney Watkins”), filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). However, Attorney Watkins has not

filed a separate petition to withdraw with this Court. Thus, we remand with

instructions to Attorney Watkins to either file an advocate’s brief or fulfill all

of the requirements of Anders

.

Pursuant to Anders , when counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous

and wishes to withdraw from representation, he must do the following:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of t he brief toJ

- S12033

- 19

- 2

-

defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.

Commonwealth v. Burwell , 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citations omitted); see also Commonwealt h v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349,
361 (Pa. 2009) (addressing the requisite contents of an Anders brief).
Here, Attorney Watkins has filed a purported Anders brief, and
concludes that the sufficiency claim raised by Koncsler is frivolous. See

Anders Brief at 7 . Despite titling this filing an Anders brief, Attorney Watkins
did not file a petition to withdraw as counsel with this Court. 1 See Burwell ,

supra . Accordingly, since Attorney Watkins failed to either file a proper

advocate’ s brief or fulfill the requi rements set forth in Anders , we cannot
address Koncsler’s appeal.
Based upon the foregoing, we remand for Attorney Watkins to either file
an advocate’s brief or fulfill all of the requirements of Anders within thirty

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 On January 17, 2019, this Court issued an Order directing Attorney Watkins to file a proper petition to withdraw as counsel and to notify Koncsler of his rights within 14 days of the date of the Order, and to file copies of such notification with this Court. Receiving no response from Attorney Watkins, this Court again issued an Order on February 6, 2019, directing Attorney Watkins to file a proper petition to withdraw as counsel and to n otify Koncsler of his rights within 7 days of the date of the Order. On February 8, 2019, Attorney Watkins filed a Response, attaching thereto a copy of the letter he sent to Koncsler, advising Koncsler of his rights. However, Attorney Watkins failed to include a petition to withdraw as counsel.J

- S12033

- 19

- 3

-

days of the filing of this Order. 2 Th e Commonwealth shall have thirty days
thereafter to file a responsive brief.
Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 We additionally caution Attorney Watkins that a proper Anders brief must include more than a bald allegation that Koncsler’s claims are frivolous. See Santiago , supra

.