J-S31036-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RYAN MATTHEW SCHANNAUER

Appellant No. 2190 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered on December 8, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-36-CR-0000957-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., ALLEN, J., and WECHT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2015

Ryan Matthew Schannauer appeals his December 8, 2014 judgment of 

sentence. Schannauer’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel, 

together with an Anders/Santiago brief.1 We find that Schannauer’s 

counsel has satisfied the Anders/Santiago requirements and that 

Schannauer has no meritorious issues to pursue on appeal. Consequently, 

we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw as counsel, and we affirm 

Schannauer’s judgment of sentence. 

____________________________________________

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. 

McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), abrogated in part by

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). In 

Santiago, our Supreme Court developed certain rules to ensure compliance 

with the principles underlying the Anders decision. Thus, it is common 

practice in this Court to refer to briefs filed thereunder as

“Anders/Santiago briefs.” 
J-S31036-15

- 2 -

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural background of the 

case as follows:

On January 15, 2014, Schannauer, then [nineteen] years[-]old, 

was charged with criminal homicide (F1), arson – danger of 

death or bodily injury (F1), abuse of a corpse (M2), [kidnapping] 

to inflict injury/terror (F1), and related conspiracy offenses from 

an incident involving the brutal death of Ashley Lynn Kline (age 

[twenty-three]) on December 30, 2013.1 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a)(1), 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2901(a)(3), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a), 

respectively.

Schannauer and his co-conspirator, Adam Morning Star Lynch, 

lured their friend, Kline, from her home in Berks County under 

the pretext of taking her to a movie. While in Schannauer’s 

vehicle, a violent struggle occurred between Kline and her 

[kidnappers]. Ultimately, the vehicle was driven to a remote 

wildlife area in northern Lancaster County, and Schannauer 

assisted Lynch in forcibly removing Kline from the vehicle. 

Schannauer further helped Lynch in forcing Kline to walk into the 

woods and assisted Lynch as he repeatedly stabbed Kline. 

Schannauer then poured gasoline over Kline’s body, and Lynch 

set her on fire while she was still alive. Schannauer and Lynch 

returned on January 8, 2014 and poured more gasoline on 

Kline’s body in an effort to conceal her identity and destroy 

evidence. Kline’s body was eventually discovered by hikers on 

January 12, 2014, and her identity confirmed by dental records. 

Pursuant to Pa.R.[Crim.]P. 802, the Commonwealth filed a 

[notice of intent to seek a sentence of death] against 

Schannauer on March 4, 2014. Specifically, the Commonwealth 

believed it could prove two statutory aggravating circumstances: 

(1) a killing while in the perpetration of a felony, specifically 

arson and [kidnapping], 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(d)(6); and (2) the 

killing was committed by means of torture. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9711(d)(8).

On November 3, 2014, Schannauer filed a pretrial motion, 

seeking to suppress statements made by Schannauer during 

police interviews on January 7, 2014, January 8, 2014, January 

9, 2014, January 14, 2014, January 15, 2014, and at other 

times Schannauer was interviewed by the Pennsylvania State 
J-S31036-15

- 3 -

Police. Schannauer further sought to suppress evidence seized 

pursuant to search warrants dated January 8, 2014, January 9, 

2014, and January 15, 2014, for Schannauer’s residence, 

vehicle, telephone[,] and computer. Lastly, Schannauer moved 

to dismiss the aggravating circumstances serving as the basis for 

the Commonwealth’s [notice intent to seek a sentence of death]. 

In exchange for the Commonwealth dropping the death penalty, 

Schannauer agreed to enter a guilty plea to the charges of [firstdegree] murder, arson, abuse of a corpse, conspiracy to abuse 

of a corpse, [kidnapping], and conspiracy to [kidnapping]. The 

conspiracy to arson charges were nolle prossed as part of the 

negotiated plea agreement. Pursuant to the negotiated guilty 

plea tendered on December 8, 2014, the [c]ourt imposed a 

mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole on 

the [first-degree] murder conviction. 

The [c]ourt further ordered the following consecutive sentences 

as per the negotiated plea agreement: (1) [ten] to [twenty] 

years’ incarceration on the arson conviction; (2) [one] to [two] 

years’ incarceration on the abuse of corpse conviction; (3) [one] 

to [two] years’ incarceration on the conspiracy to abuse of 

corpse conviction; (4) [five] to [ten] years’ incarceration on the 

[kidnapping] conviction; and (5) [three] to [six] years’ 

incarceration on the conspiracy to kidnap conviction. 

Accordingly, Schannauer received an aggregate sentence of life 

without parole plus [twenty] to [forty] years of consecutive 

incarceration. Schannauer was further ordered to pay restitution 

in the amount of $7,796.15, plus costs. No [post-sentence] 

motions were filed. 

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O”), 2/3/2015, at 1-4 (some footnotes omitted; 

references to notes of testimony omitted). 

On December 23, 2014, Schannauer filed a timely appeal to this Court. 

On January 12, 2015, Schannauer’s counsel furnished the trial court with a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). In that statement, Schannauer raised the following issues: 

1. Did the lower court impose illegal sentences where the 

sentences run consecutively to a life sentence?
J-S31036-15

- 4 -

2. Did penalty phase counsel provide ineffective assistance 

where he was working on several death row cases during the 

course or representation of the present case?

3. Did counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to provide 

[Schannauer] with a copy of discovery documents?

See Appellant’s Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal at ¶¶ 1-3. 

Counsel for Schannauer noted in the statement of errors complained of 

on appeal that it was his conclusion that Schannauer’s issues are frivolous, 

that issues two and three are not reviewable on direct appeal, and that there 

are no non-frivolous claims to assert. On February 3, 2015, the trial court 

filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

 As aforementioned, counsel has filed an Anders/Santiago brief, in 

which he has identified the same issues as those raised in his concise 

statement. Additionally, counsel has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel. 

Schannauer has filed no response to the Anders/Santiago brief. 

This Court must pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before 

reviewing the merits of the issues presented by Schannauer. 

Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en 

banc). Prior to withdrawing as counsel under Anders, counsel must file a 

brief that meets the requirements established by our Supreme Court in 

Santiago. Pursuant thereto, the brief must provide the following 

information: 

(1) a summary of the procedural history and facts, with 

citations to the record; 
J-S31036-15

- 5 -

(2) reference to anything in the record that counsel believes 

arguably supports the appeal; 

(3) counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

(4) 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. 

Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client. 

Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his rights to 

“(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; 

or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court’s 

attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” 

Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

Finally, to facilitate our review of counsel’s satisfaction of his obligations, he 

must attach to his petition to withdraw the letter he transmitted to his client. 

See Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

Our review of counsel’s petition to withdraw and the accompanying 

brief demonstrates that counsel has complied with Santiago’s requirements. 

Counsel has provided a procedural history detailing the events relevant to 

this appeal with appropriate citations to the record. See Anders Brief for 

Schannauer at 5-6. Counsel also has articulated Schannauer’s position and 

has analyzed the information presented to the sentencing court in favor of 
J-S31036-15

- 6 -

his appeal thoroughly and with appropriate citations to the record and case 

law. Id. at 7-8.2 Ultimately, counsel has concluded that Schannauer has no 

non-frivolous basis for challenging his sentence, because the sentencing 

court applied all of the appropriate sentencing guidelines and there was no 

evidence of an abuse of discretion. Id. at 11. 

Counsel also has sent Schannauer a letter informing him that he has 

identified no meritorious issues to pursue on appeal, he has filed an 

application to withdraw from Schannauer’s representation, and that 

Schannauer may find new counsel or proceed pro se. Letter, 2/25/2015. 

Counsel has attached the letter to his petition to withdraw, as is required by 

Millisock. 

Accordingly, counsel has complied substantially with Santiago’s 

technical requirements. See Millisock, 873 A.2d at 751. Having passed 

upon the procedural requirements under Anders and Santiago, we now 

must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether this 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Santiago, 978 A.2d at 354.

Schannauer’s second and third issues are arguments of claims for 

ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims. Pursuant to the current 

state of our law, the claim is without merit because Schannauer must raise it 

____________________________________________

2 Counsel titles his Anders/Santiago brief as “Summary of Argument,” 

but this section is simply the Anders/Santiago brief. 
J-S31036-15

- 7 -

in a subsequent Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition.3 In 

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013), our Supreme Court 

considered “the reviewability of claims of IAC on direct appeal.” Id. at 563. 

Following a comprehensive review of the language codified in the PCRA and 

decisions from our courts, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that 

IAC claims must be deferred until collateral review, and, thus are not 

reviewable on direct appeal. Id. at 563, 564. The Court crafted two 

exceptions to this general proscription. Id. First, the Court held that a trial 

court may, in its discretion, entertain IAC claims where extraordinary 

circumstances exist such that review of the claim would best serve the 

interests of justice. Id. at 564, 579-80. Second, the Court reposed 

discretion in trial courts to review IAC claims during post-sentence motions 

only if there is good cause shown, and the unitary review so indulged is 

preceded by the defendant’s knowing and express waiver of his entitlement 

to seek PCRA review from his conviction and sentence, including an express 

recognition that the waiver subjects further collateral review to the time and 

serial restrictions of the PCRA. Id. at 563, 580.

There is no indication in the record that extraordinary circumstances 

exist in this case such that Schannauer’s IAC claims warrant review on direct 

appeal or that Schannauer expressly waived his right to PCRA review. 

____________________________________________

3 See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46.
J-S31036-15

- 8 -

Consequently, in light of Holmes, Schannauer’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal. 

We now turn to the lone potential appealable issue identified by 

Anders counsel: “Did the lower court impose illegal sentences where the 

sentences run consecutively to a life sentence without parole?” Anders

Brief for Schannauer at 4. A challenge to the legality of the sentence can 

never be waived and may be raised by this Court sua sponte. 

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 883 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2014). “A 

challenge to the legality of a sentence may be entertained as long as the 

reviewing court has jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 

1242, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2011). Our standard of review over questions of the

legality of a sentence is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. 

Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 238 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

Schannauer’s claim concerning the legality of his sentence is meritless. 

There is no case law to support Schannauer’s claim. In fact, this Court has 

consistently held that “there is no statutory provision restricting the length 

of possible sentences.” Commonwealth v. Button, 481 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 

Super. 1984). Furthermore, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(a) gives express authority to 

the sentencing court to impose consecutive sentences.4 No statutory or 

____________________________________________

4

In pertinent part, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(a) provides: “In determining the 

sentence to be imposed the court shall . . . consider and select one or more 

of the [sentencing] alternatives, and may impose them consecutively or 

concurrently.”
J-S31036-15

- 9 -

decisional authority circumscribes this authority simply because a life 

sentence has been imposed. 

We have reviewed counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief carefully, and find 

that it complies with the technical requirements imposed by those 

precedents. We further find that counsel has taken all steps necessary to 

ensure that his client’s interests are protected. We also have conducted an 

independent review of the record. Pursuant thereto, we have concluded that 

counsel’s characterization and analysis of the record is accurate, and that no 

non-frivolous challenge to Schannauer’s judgment of sentence will lie. 

Moreover, our review has revealed no other non-frivolous issues that merit 

consideration on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Schannauer’s judgment of 

sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel 

granted. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2015