J-S22036-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

SAUNDRA LEE DINGER,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1784 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 22, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-33-CR-0000445-2011 and

CP-33-CR-0000605-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 02, 2015

Saundra Lee Dinger (Appellant) appeals from a judgment of sentence 

entered after the trial court revoked her probation. In addition, Appellant’s 

counsel has filed a petition to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We previously denied counsel’s petition to withdraw 

and remanded with instructions. We again deny counsel’s petition to 

withdraw and remand with instructions.

We briefly summarize the background underlying this matter as 

follows. The trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and sentenced her. 

Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court directed Appellant to

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed a 1925(b) statement, and 
J-S22036-15

- 2 -

the trial court subsequently filed an opinion in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a).

Counsel then filed with this Court a petition to withdraw and an 

Anders brief. We consider such matters 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.

If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical 

requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to 

withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions 

(e.g., directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an 

advocate’s brief on Appellant's behalf). By contrast, if counsel’s 

petition and brief satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our 

own review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous. If 

the appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and 

affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are nonfrivolous issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the 

filing of an advocate’s brief.

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has expounded further upon the 

requirements of Anders as follows.

[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed 

counsel’s petition to withdraw, counsel must: (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 
J-S22036-15

- 3 -

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.

We determined that counsel failed to comply with the above 

requirements. In so doing, we cited the following missteps by counsel: 1) 

counsel failed to append to the Anders brief the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement; 2) the certificate of service that counsel attached to the petition 

to withdraw did not reflect that counsel served Appellant with the petition; 

3) the Anders brief’s “statement of the case” did not contain any citation to 

the record; 4) counsel failed to ensure that the certified record contained a 

transcript of the Gagnon I1, 2 hearing; and 5) counsel did not explain 

adequately his reasons for concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Due to these deficiencies, we denied counsel’s petition to withdraw without 

prejudice and remanded this case, directing counsel to file either an 

advocate’s brief or a proper Anders brief and petition to withdraw. 

Counsel again has filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief. 

Counsel has repeated his failure to append to the Anders brief the Pa.R.A.P. 

 

1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).

2

“[T]he Gagnon I hearing is similar to the preliminary hearing afforded all 

offenders before a Common Pleas Court trial: the Commonwealth must 

show probable cause that the violation was committed.” Commonwealth 

v. Ferguson, 761 A.2d 613, 617 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted).
J-S22036-15

- 4 -

1925(b) statement. Moreover, counsel simply did not file a certificate of 

service with his new petition to withdraw. While the Anders brief’s 

“statement of the case” contains citation to the record and counsel better 

explained his reasons for concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous, he 

failed to ensure that the certified record contained a transcript of the 

Gagnon I hearing.3

Due to these deficiencies, we again deny counsel’s petition to withdraw 

without prejudice. Thus, we remand this case and direct counsel to file, 

within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, either an advocate’s brief or 

a proper Anders brief and petition to withdraw.

4

 The Commonwealth shall 

have 30 days from the date that counsel files his brief in order to file a 

responsive brief.

Petition to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded with 

instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained. 

 

3 Counsel appended to the Anders brief what appears to be a copy of the 

Gagnon I hearing transcripts. Such an action is insufficient to correct the 

hole in the certified record. See Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 

6-7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[U]nder the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, any document which is not part of the officially certified record is 

deemed non-existent—a deficiency which cannot be remedied merely by 

including copies of the missing documents in a brief or in the reproduced 

record.”).

4 We will not countenance a third non-compliant effort on counsel’s part.