J

- S21044

- 20

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRANDON STRAITIFF

,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1800 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered November 15, 2019

i n the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 42

- MD

- 0000147

- 2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 21, 2020

Brandon Straitiff ( “ Straitiff ” ) appeals from the Order denying his Petition

for W rit of H abeas C orpus , through which Straitiff sought to halt

his extradition to the State of Idaho

. Straitiff ’ s counsel has filed a Petition to

Withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California

, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

We grant counsel ’ s Petition to Withdraw

, and dismiss Straitiff’s appeal as

moot

.

In its Opinion, t he trial court provided the following history underlying

the instant appeal:

[Straitiff] was apprehended regarding a pending [w]arrant

for him issued by the State of Idaho. Idaho requested the re turn

of [Straitiff] to address pending felony charges. [S traitiff] was

held until the obtainment of a Governor’s Warrant for his

Extradition to Idaho. [Straitiff] filed a [ h ] abeas [ c ] orpus

Petition [,] and [a] hearing to address it was held on November

22, 2019. [Straitiff ] asserted that the Commonwealth could notJ

- S21044

- 20

- 2

-

demonstrate that he was the individual, namely Brandon Straitiff,

who was requested by the State of Idaho. [Straitiff] presented no

testimony or evidence at the [ h ] abeas hearing. His sole argument

was that the C ommonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence

to demonstrate that he was Brandon Straitiff.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/26/19, at 1 (unnumbered)

. On November 22, 2019,

the trial court denied Straitiff’s h abeas c orpus Petition. Straitiff was extradited

t o the State of Idaho on December 4, 2019

. On December 5, 2019, Straitiff

timely filed a Notice of Appeal, followed by a court

- ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.

Before this Court may consider the merits of th e issue s raised by

Straitiff

, we must address counsel ’ s Petition to W ithdraw from representation.

See Commonwealth v. Daniels

, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(stating that, “ [w]hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may

not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the

request to withdraw. ” ). According to Santiago , in the Anders brief that

accompanies counsel ’ s petition to withdraw, counsel must

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 frivol ous.

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.

Here, counsel ’ s Petition to Withdraw states that she has reviewed the

record and concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Additionally, counselJ

- S21044

- 20

- 3

-

notified Straitiff that she was seeking permission to withdraw, furnished

Straitiff with copies of the Petitio n to Withdraw and Anders Brief, and advised

Straitiff of h is right to retain new counsel, or proceed pro se , to raise any

points that Straitiff believes are worthy of this Court ’ s attention. See id.

Accordingly, counsel has satisfied the procedural requirements of Anders

.

We next determine whether counsel ’ s Anders Brief meets the

substantive dictates of Santiago

. Our review of the Anders Brief discloses

that counsel has provided the facts and procedural history of the case.

Additionally, counsel refers to one substantive claim that could arguably

support the appeal

, and concludes that the issue is wholly frivolous. Because

appellate counsel has satisfied the above requirements, we will address the

substantive issue raised in the Anders Brief. In addition, we must 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) ( en banc ); see Commonwealth v. Yorgey

, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa.

Super. 2018) ( en banc ) (noting that Anders requires the reviewing court to

“ review ‘ the case ’ as presented in the entire record with consideration first of

issues raised by counsel. ” ).

The Anders B rief presents the following claims for our review:

(1) Whether the trial court erred by allowing additional

testimony and exhibits to be entered into t he record after

the presentation of evidence had already concluded.J

- S21044

- 20

- 4

- a. Specifically, did the trial court commit legal error by

questioning Sheriff Daniel Woods a fter the

Commonwealth and [d]efense [counsel] had already

presented argument [?]

b. Additionally, did the trial court commit legal error by

allowing the Commonwealth to enter the Governor’s

[W] arrant and accompanying documentation into the

record after the C ommonwealth and [d]efense [counsel]

had already rested and [the d]efense [had] presented

argument[?]

(2) Whether the Commonwealth failed to establish that

[Straitiff] is the person demanded by the State of Idaho[?]

Anders Brief at 4.

Before addressing these claims, we observe that in his Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) Concise Statement, as well as in the Statement of Questions I nvolved

in the Anders B rief, Straitiff concedes that the issues are now moot. Concise

Statement, 12/19/19, ¶ 3; Anders Br ief at 4. Specifically, Straitiff

acknowledges that he was extradited to the State of Idaho

. See id.

In Commonwealth v. Caffrey

, 508 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 1986)

, this

Court addressed a case in a similar procedural posture. In Caffrey

, the

appellant had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to prevent

his extradition to the State of Delaware. Id. at 323. The petition was denied

in the trial court, and Caffrey appealed that decision. Id. However, Caffrey

was extradited prior to the issuance of this Court’s decision. Id.

Consequently, this Court quashed the appeal as moot. Id. at 324. In a

footnote, the Court explained thatJ

- S21044

- 20

- 5

-

[t] his does not leave all those denied the writ no appellate review.

A stay of the extradition could be sought pending appeal. See

, [ e.g. ]

, Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price

, ... 185 A.2d 523

( Pa. 1962). Had appellant utilized that procedure, he would, most

likely, still be in this state and we would have the ability to rule on

the merits of his appeal. However, he did not [,] and we do not.

Id. at 324 n.3.

Here, Straitiff did not request a stay of the extradition proceedings,

pending the outcome of his appeal of the denial of habeas corpus relief.

Because Straitiff has been extradited to Idaho, this Court can not afford him

the requested relief. 1 Consequently, the instant appeal is moot. Further,

counsel’s assessment of the appeal as frivolous is confirmed

, and our

independent review of the record reveals no potentially meritorious issues

. 2

We therefore grant counsel’s Application to Withdraw, and dismiss Straitiff’s

app eal.

Application to W ithdraw granted. Appeal dismissed

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 We observe that Straitiff does not raise any exception to the mootness

doctrine.

2 Even if we could reach the merits of the claims raised by Straitiff, we would

conclude that t hey lack merit for the reasons stated in the trial court’s Opinion.

See Trial Court Opinion, 12/26/19, at 1

- 3 (unnumbered).J

- S21044

- 20

- 6

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/21/2020