J-S09035-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ULYSSES JAVIER CORTES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1387 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-39-CR-0003138-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BECK, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2024

Ulysses Javier Cortes appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to aggravated assault. On appeal, Cortes’ appellate 

counsel, Attorney Michael E. Brunnabend (“Attorney Brunnabend”) has filed 

an application to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

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

2009). We conclude, however, that Attorney Brunnabend has not fulfilled the 

technical mandates of Anders/Santiago based upon his indication to Cortes

that he has the right to proceed with the appeal, in relevant part, by 

requesting that this Court appoint “alternative” counsel. Because Attorney 

Brunnabend failed to comply with the technical requirements of 

Anders/Santiago, we instruct him to cure the defect before we address the 

appeal.
J-S09035-24

- 2 -

Pursuant to Anders/Santiago, when an attorney believes that an 

appeal is wholly frivolous and wishes to withdraw as counsel, he or she must

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after 

making a conscientious examination of the record and 

interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal 

would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the 

record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to 

defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to 

raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s 

attention.

Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations omitted). More specifically, regarding the third obligation, counsel 

must advise the “client of his right 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/Santiago] brief.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 

A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

In his letter to Cortes explaining his application to withdraw, Attorney 

Brunnabend informed Cortes that he could proceed with the appeal by 

“obtain[ing] counsel of your own choosing, or request[ing] the appointment 

of counsel from the Superior Court or the local Court should you feel that there 

is a reason for the same.” Letter, 10/26/23, at 2-3 (unnumbered); see also 

Application to Withdraw as Counsel, 10/26/23, ¶ 6 (“The Defendant, [Cortes], 

has further been advised that he has the right to proceed with this appeal by 

the filing of his own responsive brief ... pro se, or by proceeding with counsel 
J-S09035-24

- 3 -

of his own choosing, and retain such counsel[,] or[] by requesting from the 

Court the appointment of other alternative counsel, if he should so choose.”).

There is no authority providing for the appointment of new counsel by 

this Court when counsel has filed an application to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders/Santiago. See Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 

(Pa. Super. 2005) (denying counsel’s motion to withdraw where counsel 

incorrectly stated that appellant was entitled to “different court-appointed 

counsel.”). Pointedly, this Court has previously informed Attorney 

Brunnabend that such a statement to a client as part of an application to 

withdraw pursuant to Anders/Santiago is erroneous and unsupported by the 

law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hein, 3053 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 6378110

at *2 n.3 (Pa. Super. Sept. 29, 2023) (non-precedential decision) (allowing 

Attorney Brunnabend to withdraw representation despite the fact his letter to 

appellant and petition to withdraw informed appellant that he “was entitled to 

appointment of new or ‘alternative’ counsel,” but cautioning “counsel to refrain 

from suggesting this option in the future”); Commonwealth v. Coles, 1277 

EDA 2022, 2023 WL 2544661 at *2 (Pa. Super. Mar. 17, 2023) (nonprecedential decision) (noting that in his petition to withdraw, Attorney 

Brunnabend incorrectly advised appellant of a purported right to new counsel 

“by requesting from the Court the appointment of other alternative counsel, if 

he should so choose”). 
J-S09035-24

- 4 -

Therefore, we direct Attorney Brunnabend to file a proper application to 

withdraw as counsel, correctly informing Cortes of his rights within 10 days of 

the filing of this Judgment Order. Additionally, Cortes shall be given the 

opportunity, if he chooses, to file a brief pro se or with new counsel within 45 

days of receiving Attorney Brunnabend’s application to withdraw as counsel. 

See Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 901 (Pa. Super. 2007); 

Millisock, 873 A.2d at 752. 

Application to withdraw as counsel denied. Jurisdiction retained.

Date: 3/20/2024