J-S59025- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. LINDELL TATE Appellant No. 3368 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3 , 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 09

- CR -0003146-2011
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 Lindell Tate appeals from his judgment of sentence, en tered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following Tate’ s convictions for robbery

– threat of immediate serious injury, 1 receiving stolen property, 2 firearms not to be carried without a license, 3 possession of a weapon, 4 recklessly endangering another person, 5 theft by unlawful taking

– movable

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b).

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.J-S59025- 14

- 2 -

property, 6 and persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms. 7 Tat e’s counsel also moves to withdraw pursuant to the dictates of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Commonwealth v. McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we affirm Tate’s judgm ent of sentence based on the opinion of the Honorable Clyde W . Waite, and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. On January 29, 2011, at approximately 6:05 p.m., T ate entered a 7- Eleven store at Street Road and Windsor Street in Ben salem Township, Bucks County. Tate pointed a handgun at the store cler k and demanded money and cigarettes. The clerk gave Tate cigarettes an d $635.00 in cash. Tate then fled to the Dunkin’ Donuts across the street. Meanwhil e, the store clerk and another 7-Eleven employee called 911. The call resulted in a police radio dispatch describing Tate and stating that h e had run across Street Road to a Dunkin’ Donuts store. Officer Steven Bailey of the Bensalem Township Police r esponded to the call along with three other officers. They enter ed the Dunkin’ Donuts where they saw a man matching Tate’s description go into the bathroom. Officer Bailey requested three times that Tate come out . Tate ignored these

____________________________________________ 6 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

7 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).J-S59025- 14

- 3 -

requests, and Officer Bailey entered the bathroom. Of ficer Bailey confronted Tate in the bathroom and again asked him to leave, h owever, Tate refused. The other officers then entered the bathroom, and fol lowing a brief struggle, they detained and arrested Tate. At the time of his arrest, Tate had $615.00 on his pe rson. Investigation revealed that Tate purchased a cup of Dun kin’ Donuts coffee using a $20 bill he had stolen from 7-Eleven. A search of the bathroom revealed a black nine-millimeter Taurus handgun in th e wastebasket. Later testing of the weapon revealed it was covered in DNA matching Tate’s. Following his arrest, Bensalem Township Detective David Nieves interviewed Tate. After obtaining identifying info rmation, Detective Nieves read Tate his Miranda 8 warnings and Tate read and signed a card with the warnings, indicating he understood each one. After fi rst denying guilt, Tate confessed to robbing the 7-Eleven. Tate later testifie d at the suppression hearing that he was high during his interview; howeve r, Detective Nieves testified that Tate appeared normal, coherent, and u nderstanding. On August 19, 2011, Tate filed an omnibus pre-trial motion seeking to suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to his arrest. Following a suppression hearing on August 30, 2011, the court conclude d that the police

____________________________________________ 8 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).J-S59025- 14

- 4 -

had sufficient probable cause to arrest Tate immediatel y after the robbery and denied his pre-trial motion. On March 6, 2012, a one-day stipulated waiver trial occurred. At the conclusion of trial, the court found Tate guilty on all counts. Sentencing was deferred until May 3, 2012, at which the time the cou rt sentenced Tate to an aggregate term of 71⁄2 to 17 years’ incarceration. Tate filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence on May 7, 2012, which was denied by operation of law. On December 2, 2013, following reinstatement of his right to appeal nunc pro tunc , Tate filed the instant appeal. As noted above, counsel has filed an Anders brief and a corresponding petition to withdraw as counsel. “When faced with a pur po rted Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the un derlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Rojas , 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, counse l must follow certain mandates when seeking to withdraw pursuant to Anders , McClendon , and Santiago . These mandates are not overly burdensome and have b een summarized as follows: Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious e xamination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivo lous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any oth er issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation there of. Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant o f the right toJ-S59025- 14

- 5 -

retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court’s attention. If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical requi rements of Anders , this Court will deny the petition to withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g., di recting counsel either to comply with Anders or file an advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). Co mmonwealth v. Woods , 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, the Anders brief that accompanies counsel’s petition to withdraw must: (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and f acts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set fo rth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s r easons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, co ntrolling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to th e conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Santiago , 978 A.2d at 361. Here, counsel filed a petition averring that, upon a thorough examination of the record, he finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous, and states his reasons for so concluding. Counsel also filed a brief that provides the case’s factual and procedural history and incl udes citations to the record. Counsel provided a copy of the Anders petition and brief to Tate, and advised him of his right to retain new counsel, or proce ed pro se , and raise any additional points he deems worthy of this Court’s attention. Accordingly, we find counsel has met the requirements of Anders , McClendon , and Santiago

.J-S59025- 14

- 6 -

Once counsel has satisfied the above requirements, this Cou rt conducts its own review of the proceedings and renders a n independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v. Wright , 846 A.2d 730, 736 (Pa. Super. 2004). On appeal, Tate challenges the trial court’s decision to den y his motion to suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to his arrest, cla iming that the police lacked reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or any other grounds to detain, search, and arrest Tate. Accordingly, Tate argu es that all evidence obtained as a result of his arrest should have been su ppressed. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that Tate’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of hi s suppression motion is meritless. The trial court opinion comprehensively discus ses and properly disposes of the question presented. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/14//14, at
14

- 17 (finding “[a]n examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case reveals that there was an overwhelm ing amount of indisputable evidence to support the trial court’s concl usion that the police officers had probable cause to detain and arrest Tate.”)

. As such, we rely upon the opinion authored by the Hono rable Clyde W. Waite in affirming the trial court’s order. We instru ct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Waite’s deci sion in the event of further proceedings in the matter. Additionally, because Tate’s appeal is, in fa ct, wholly frivolous, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.J-S59025- 14

- 7 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/26/2014Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PMCirculated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM