J. A17033/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

ROBERT JENKINS, : No. 151 EDA 2020

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 29, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No. CP-09-CR-0005669-2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 23, 2020

Robert Jenkins appeals from the May 29, 2019 judgment of sentence 

entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County following his 

conviction of robbery, criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, and possessing

instruments of crime.1 Patrick J. McMenamin, Jr., Esq., filed an application to 

withdraw his appearance on April 22, 2020, alleging that the appeal is wholly

frivolous, accompanied by an Anders brief.2 After careful review, we deny 

Attorney McMenamin’s application to withdraw and remand with instructions.

The trial court set forth the following procedural history:

On May 29, 2019, [appellant] entered a guilty plea to 

robbery (threatening another with/intentionally 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 903(a), and 907(a).

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. 

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
J. A17033/20

- 2 -

putting another in fear of serious bodily injury), a 

felony of the first degree; criminal conspiracy to 

commit robbery, a felony of the first degree; and 

possessing instruments of crime, a misdemeanor of 

the first degree. Pursuant to a plea agreement 

between [appellant] and the Commonwealth, 

[appellant] was sentenced to a term of incarceration 

of six and a half to fifteen years. [Appellant] did not 

file a timely post-sentence motion or a direct appeal.

On August 5, 2019, [the trial] court received a letter 

form [appellant,] dated July 31, 2019, requesting 

appointment of counsel to assist him in filing “a 

reconsideration” and to “retract my guilty plea.” Since 

the time for filing post-sentence motions and a direct 

appeal had expired, [appellant’s] letter was treated as 

a request for relief under the Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”).[3] On August 19, 2019, PCRA counsel 

was appointed. On November 15, 2019, [the trial] 

court entered an agreed order granting [appellant’s] 

request for PCRA relief and reinstating [appellant’s] 

right to file post-sentence motions and/or a direct 

appeal from the judgment of sentence nunc pro 

tunc.

On November 25, 2019, [appellant] filed a motion for 

reconsideration of sentence nunc pro tunc. By order 

dated[] November 27, 2019, [appellant’s] motion for 

reconsideration of sentence was denied.

On December 27, 2019, [appellant] filed [a] notice of 

appeal. On January 7, 2020, [appellant] was directed 

to file a concise statement of matters complained of 

on appeal [pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)]. On 

January 13, 2020, [appellant] filed his [Rule 1925(b) 

statement] challenging the discretionary aspects of 

[his] sentence.

 

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. A17033/20

- 3 -

Trial court opinion, 2/26/20 at 1-2 (citations, citations to the record, footnote, 

and extraneous capitalization omitted). The trial court filed an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on February 26, 2020.

Attorney McMenamin filed with this court an Anders brief and an 

application to withdraw as counsel on April 22, 2020. On April 28, 2020, this 

court entered an order noting that Attorney McMenamin failed to attach a copy 

of his letter to appellant explaining appellant’s rights to his application to 

withdraw. (Order of court, 4/28/20 (per curiam).) This court ordered 

Attorney McMenamin to provide a copy of his letter to appellant advising 

appellant of his rights. (Id., citing Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 

748, 752 (Pa.Super. 2005).) On April 29, 2020, in response to this court’s 

order, Attorney McMenamin filed with this court a copy of the letter he sent to 

appellant, wherein Attorney McMenamin advised appellant that he has “the 

right to represent [him]self or to hire private counsel to represent [him.]” 

(Response of appellant’s counsel to the order & rule to show cause, 4/29/20, 

Ex. A.)

A request by appointed counsel to withdraw pursuant 

to Anders and Santiago gives rise to certain 

requirements and obligations, for both appointed 

counsel and this Court. Commonwealth v. Flowers, 

113 A.3d 1246, 1247-1248 (Pa.Super. 2015).

These requirements and the significant

protection they provide to an Anders

appellant arise because a criminal 

defendant has a constitutional right to a 

direct appeal and to counsel on that 

appeal. Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 
J. A17033/20

- 4 -

A.2d 896, 898 (Pa.Super. 2007). This 

Court has summarized these 

requirements as follows:

Direct appeal counsel seeking 

to withdraw under Anders

must file a petition averring 

that, after a conscientious 

examination of the record, 

counsel finds the appeal to be 

wholly frivolous. Counsel 

must also file an Anders brief 

setting forth issues that might 

arguably support the appeal 

along with any other issues 

necessary for the effective 

appellate presentation 

thereof.

Anders counsel must also 

provide a copy of the Anders

petition and brief to the 

appellant, advising the 

appellant of the right to retain 

new counsel, proceed pro se

or raise any additional points 

worthy of this Court’s 

attention.

Woods, 939 A.2d at 898 (citations 

omitted).

Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415, 419 (Pa.Super. 2015).

Our review of Attorney McMenamin’s application to withdraw and

supporting documentation reveals that he has not complied with all of the 

foregoing requirements. We note that counsel has furnished a copy of the 

Anders brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to retain new counsel 

or proceed pro se, and has filed with this court a copy of the letter sent to 
J. A17033/20

- 5 -

appellant as required under Millisock. See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 

A.2d 590, 594 (Pa.Super. 2010) (“While the Supreme Court in Santiago set 

forth the new requirements for an Anders brief, which are quoted above, the 

holding did not abrogate the notice requirements set forth in Millisock that 

remain binding legal precedent.”). Attorney McMenamin’s letter, however, 

failed to advise appellant that he may raise other issues before this court. 

See Millisock, 873 A.2d at 751 (citation omitted).

We remand and direct Attorney McMenamin to send appellant a letter, 

accompanied by the Anders brief, that complies with the directives of 

Commonwealth v. Millisock. Attorney McMenamin shall comply with this 

directive within 30 days of the date of the filing of this memorandum. 

Appellant may respond within 45 days of receipt of Attorney McMenamin’s 

Anders brief and accompanying letter.

Application to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded. Jurisdiction 

retained. 

Judgment Entered.

JosephD.Seletyn,Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2020