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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

in 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, Esquire (“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 the brief to 
J-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 Commonwealth 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 requirements 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 notify 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 The 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.