J-S33028-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RASSAHN ALAN WRIGHT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1377 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 1, 2022,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0003542-2020.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2022

Rassahn Alan Wright appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

after he pled guilty to simple assault.1 Additionally, Wright’s counsel filed a 

petition to withdraw representation and an accompanying brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon review, we grant counsel’s 

petition and affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history as follows:

On September 21, 2020, at approximately 1:59 p.m., a patrolman 

employed by the Phoenixville Borough in Chester County 

responded to a report of a motor vehicle accident near the Sunoco 

gas station on Nutt Road. The female driver of the striking vehicle 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(i).
J-S33028-22

- 2 -

showed obvious signs of being under the influence of a controlled 

substance and was placed under arrest. [Wright] was found 

asleep in the front passenger seat of the striking vehicle. After 

being awoken, the patrolman attempted to initiate his 

investigation and observed [Wright] attempting to conceal a small 

bag of suspected marijuana. He also displayed signs of being 

under the influence of a controlled substance and was detained in

handcuffs pending further investigation. [Wright] subsequently 

became physically and verbally aggressive and kicked an EMT, 

who had responded to the scene, three times. [Wright] was 

placed under arrest for Public Drunkenness. A search incident to 

arrest found [Wright] in possession of a Crown Royal bag 

containing three clear bags of suspected marijuana. As a result 

of both the driver and passenger of the striking car being placed 

under arrest, the vehicle was processed for towing. In searching 

the vehicle’s trunk, officers located men’s clothing, [Wright’s]

fishing license, his employee identification card, and a second 

[Crown Royal] bag that contained two additional clear bags of 

suspected marijuana.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/22, at 1-2. Wright was arrested and charged with 

one count of aggravated assault, two counts of possession of a controlled 

substance, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of 

simple assault, and one count of harassment.2

On November 5, 2021, Wright pled guilty to simple assault; all other 

charges were withdrawn. At the sentencing hearing, the victim and Wright 

testified. The court also received a statement from Wright’s partner and 

mother of their special needs child. Additionally, the Commonwealth played 

some of the video from an officer’s body camera that night. Wright requested 

that another, earlier portion of it be played, but the court did not allow it. The 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3), 35 P.S. §§ 790-113-A-16 and A-32, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 2701(a)1) and 2709(a)(1).
J-S33028-22

- 3 -

trial court sentenced Wright to 8 to 23 months’ incarceration. Wright filed a 

post-sentence motion seeking modification of his sentence, which the court 

denied.

Wright filed this timely appeal. Counsel filed a petition to withdraw from 

representation and an Anders brief with this Court. Wright did not retain 

independent counsel or file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

Before we may consider the issues raised in the Anders brief, we must 

first consider counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation. See

Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding 

that, 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). 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 

counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points [counsel] 

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:
J-S33028-22

- 4 -

(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).

Here, counsel has complied with each of the requirements of Anders. 

Counsel indicated that he reviewed the record and concluded that Wright’s

appeal is frivolous. Further, the Anders brief substantially comports with the 

requirements set forth by our Supreme Court in Santiago. Finally, the record 

included a copy of the letter that counsel sent to Wright stating counsel’s 

intention to seek permission to withdraw and advising Wright of his right to 

proceed pro se or retain new counsel and file additional claims. Accordingly, 

as counsel has complied with the procedural requirements for withdrawing 

from representation, we will conduct an independent review to determine 

whether Wright appeal is wholly frivolous. 
J-S33028-22

- 5 -

In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the only issue Wright could 

potentially raise is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an 

appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 

170 (Pa. Super. 2010). This Court has explained that, to reach the merits of 

a discretionary sentencing issue, we must conduct a four-part analysis to 

determine: 

(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [a]ppellant 

preserved his issue; (3) whether [a]pellant's brief includes a 

concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of 

appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [in 

accordance with 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement 

raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate 

under the sentencing code. . . . [I]f the appeal satisfies each of 

these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the 

substantive merits of the case.

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013)). 

Wright has satisfied the first three requirements under Colon. 

Accordingly, we must determine whether he has raised a substantial question. 

In the 2119(f) statement, counsel asserts that the only substantial 

question that could be raised is that the trial court’s sentence was excessive 

and failed to consider mitigating factors. Anders Brief at 14. We have held 

that an argument that a sentence was excessive in conjunction with the 

assertion that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors raises a 

substantial question. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 
J-S33028-22

- 6 -

(Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc). Therefore, we will review Wright’s sentencing 

claim.

Our standard of review of a sentencing claim is as follows:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse 

of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, 

the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the 

sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its 

judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or 

arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006). 

Additionally, where a sentence is within the standard range of the 

guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the 

Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 

2019) (internal quotations and citation omitted). As such, we must affirm 

unless “application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2). 

Wright claims that the trial court abused its discretion and imposed an

excessive sentence by failing to consider relevant mitigating factors. In 

particular, he argues that the court did not consider his: lack of a violent 

record, employment at two jobs, special needs child, injured leg requiring 

rehabilitation, and efforts to turn his life around. Wright further argues that 

the trial court should have viewed the entire video from the officer’s body 

camera which would have provided additional mitigating evidence. Anders
J-S33028-22

- 7 -

Brief at 16. Considering these factors, Wright maintains that the trial court 

should have imposed a sentence in the mitigated range. 

In sentencing Wright, we first note that the trial court had a presentence investigation report and reviewed it. N.T., 4/1/22, at 22. “[W]here 

the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the 

court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and 

that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be 

disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 

2009) (citation omitted). 

Additionally, the trial court was informed that, based upon a prior record 

score of 5 and an offense gravity score of 3, the sentencing guidelines 

recommended a standard range, minimum sentence of 6 to 12 months’

incarceration. Id. at 2, 22. The court imposed a minimum sentence near the 

lower end of this range. As such, we presume Wright’s sentence was 

appropriate. 

Notwithstanding this, our review of the record shows that the trial court 

considered multiple factors when it sentenced Wright, including mitigating 

ones. At the hearing, Wright told the court about his business with his father 

and his clothing line. He asked the court for leniency because of his daughter’s 

special needs. Wright’s partner and mother of their daughter gave a written 

statement to the court about how Wright provided and cared for their child. 

However, the court also heard from the EMS worker who was trying to 

help Wright when Wright attacked him. The worker explained how the attack 
J-S33028-22

- 8 -

impacted him and the ongoing concern he had for his safety at work since 

then. This resonated with the court. 

The court acknowledged that Wright had not previously committed 

crimes of violence, but noted he had a “very extensive criminal history.” It 

further noted that many of these crimes involved drugs and alcohol and 

concluded that Wright has a drug and alcohol problem. And, although Wright

was afforded treatment multiple times in the past, he failed to take advantage 

of these opportunities and better himself. As such, the court determined that 

Wright’s rehabilitative needs could not be satisfied in the community. 

Significantly, the court emphasized Wright’s need to begin a life of recovery 

so that he could be a good father to his daughter. The court specifically 

recognized Wright’s concern for his daughter and how important she was to 

him. However, taking everything into consideration, the trial court imposed a 

sentence of incarceration within the standard range. Id. at 19-25.

Based upon our review of the sentencing transcript, it is evident that 

the trial court thoughtfully weighed all the relevant factors in this case.

3

 On 

appeal, “[w]e cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our 

judgment in place of the sentencing court.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 

A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009). We conclude that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in sentencing Wright.

____________________________________________

3 Wright’s argument that the trial court should have reviewed the beginning 

of the body camera video does not change this conclusion. Because Wright 

was passed out during that portion of the video, it could not have offered any 

information relevant to his sentence. See N.T., 4/1/22, at 20-21.
J-S33028-22

- 9 -

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Wright’s issue is wholly 

frivolous. Furthermore, as required by Anders, we have independently 

reviewed the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues 

present in this case. Our review of the record disclosed no other non-frivolous 

issues that Watts could raise that counsel overlooked. See Dempster, 

supra.

Having concluded that there are no non-frivolous issues, we grant 

counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Petition to withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment of sentence 

affirmed.

Judge King did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/19/2022