J

- S31029

- 18

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

v.

ALEXANDER OTT

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3995 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 6, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0005017

- 2017

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 13 , 2018 Alexander Ott appeals from his judgment of sentence following the entry of a negotiated guilty plea to the charge of driving under the influence (“DUI”)

– controlled substance

– Schedule I (1 st Offense). 1 Counse l has filed a p etition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U. S. 738 (1967), and its
progeny. 2 After careful review, we remand with instructions, deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and retain panel jurisdiction

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(i).

2 Pursua nt to Pa

. R.A. P. 1925(c)(4), counse l has filed of record and served on the trial judge his intent to file an Anders brief in lieu of a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.J

- S31029

- 18

- 2

-

On June 2, 2017 , Officer Joseph L. Laspina, J r. , of the Morton Borough Poli ce Department , observed Ott’s car and smelled burnt marijuana. He followed the car to a Wawa parking lot and conducted a search of Ott’s vehicle. 3 He found s even bags of marijuana (30 grams or fewer) and related paraphernalia. Officer Laspina wrote in his affidavit of probable cause that ,

“ Ott was read the DL [

- ] 26 form in its entirety [,] signed, and agreed to provide blood. ” Aff. Of Probable Cause, June 4, 2017, 1. Following arraignment on September 13, 2017, the court formally charged Ott with , inter alia , DUI

– controlled substance

– Schedule I (1 st Offense). 4 On November 6, 2017 , Ott entered a negotiated guilty plea with regard to the charge and sentence. Accordingly, Ott was sentenced to six months of intermediate punishment with the first twenty days on electronic home monitoring, eighty hours of community service, a $1,000 fin e, and a $100 cost
assessment. No post

- sentence motions were filed. Ott filed a n otice of a pp eal

o n December 5, 2017 , with the assistance of counsel. On December 6, 2017 , the court ordered Ott to provide a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) s tatement of e rrors

c omplained of on a ppeal within twenty

- one day s . Counsel notified the court of his intention to file an Anders brief on December 22 , 2017

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We note that there is a lack of information in the record regarding the stop itself.

4 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(i).J

- S31029

- 18

- 3

-

In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal pursuant to Anders , counsel must : 1) petition the court for leave to withdraw , stating that counsel made a conscientious examination of the record and that the appeal is frivolous ; 2) file a n Anders brief indicating any issues of arguable merit ; and 3) provide the defendant with a copy of the brief and inform him of his right
to retain new counsel or raise add itio nal issues before this Court. Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349, 351 (Pa. 2009). C ounsel’s Anders brief must : (1) p rovide 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 r easons 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

. Id. at 361. In addition to determinin g whether counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders , this C ourt is obligated to make a “full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgement to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Flowers , 113 A.3d 1246, 1248 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citing Santiago , 978 A.2d at 354 n.5). Here, c ounsel timely petitioned th e court for leave to withdraw, examined the record, determined the appeal was frivolous, and provided Ott with a copy of the Anders brief

. Ott was informed of his right to obtain priv a te counsel or proceed pro se and file a response. Counsel ’s Anders brief, however, may have overlooked a point of arguable merit.J

- S31029

- 18

- 4

-

In his Anders brief , counsel notes that whether the sentence is harsh and excessive under the circumstances may be an issue of arguable merit. However, counsel failed to address a possible Birchfield issue. See Birchfield v

. North Dakota , 136 U.S. 2160 (2016) . In Birchfi e l d , the Supreme Court held that that warrantless blood draws are a violation of the Fourth A mendment and that drivers cannot be found to have consented to a warrantless blood draw if they believe that their refusal constitutes a criminal offense. Id. at 2184

- 86. Applying Birchfield , the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that drivers who refuse to provide blood cannot be charged with a higher penalty than they would have otherwise received. See Commonwealth v. Giron , 155 A.3d 635, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017); see also Commonwealth v. Ennels , 167 A.3d 71 6 , 721, 724 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding Birchfield ban on warrantless blood tests for DUI of alcohol also applied to individuals suspected of DUI of controlled substances). Thus , a driver who agrees to have blood drawn in order to avoid increased criminal penalties, which was the language of the warnings contained on the pre - Birchfield DL

- 26 form , cannot be said to have consented to the procedure. See Commonwealth v. Evans , 153 A.3d 323, 331 ( Pa. Super. 2016). As noted above , Ott c onsented to a blood draw after O fficer Laspina read him the DL

- 26 form ; that form , however, has been modified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in light of the Supreme Court’sJ

- S31029

- 18

- 5

-

decision in Birchfield

. See Commonwealth v. Robertson , 2018 PA Super 110 , at *5. ( Pa. Super. filed May 3, 2018). The record in this case does n ot indicate whether Ott was read the warnings from a pre - Birchfield DL

- 26 form 5 or the language on the revised DL

- 26B form

. Here, c ounsel correctly states that Ott entered into a negotiated guilty plea , thereby limiting the issues he can raise on appeal. Ott, in entering a negotiated guilty plea, waived his rights to “challenge on direct appeal all non

jurisdictional defects except the legality of the sentence and the validity of the plea.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln , 72 A.3d 606, 609 ( Pa. Super. 2013). He may not, therefore, challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Commonwealth v. O’Malley , 957 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2015)

. Moreover, Ott waiv ed the ability to challenge the validity of his plea by failing to object during the plea colloquy or by failing to file a post
- sentence motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing

. Lincoln , 72 A.3d at 609

- 10. However, Ott may have a valid claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. The failure of trial counsel to file a motion to suppress the blood test results and failure to file a post

- trial motion withdrawing the plea may amount

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 5 The warnings contained on the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s former DL

- 26 form provide that if a person refuses to consent to a blood test he or she will face more severe criminal penalties bec ause of the refusal. See Robertson , supra at *6. The DL

- 26 form was revised within one week of the Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield

. Robertson , supra at *5. The new form, the DL

- 26B, states that there may be civil penalties associated with refusal, but the language re garding enhanced c riminal penalties was removed. See i d .J

- S31029

- 18

- 6

-

to ineffectiveness of counsel . Such c hallenges are typically appropriate for collateral review, not direct appeal

. Commonwealth v. Grant , 813 A.3d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002)

. There are, how ever, “extraordinary” cases where a trial court may “determine that a claim (or claims) of ineffectiveness is both meritorious and apparent from the record so that immediate consider a tion and relief is warranted.” Commonwealth v. Holmes , 621 Pa. 595, 621 (Pa. 2013). The Holmes Court noted that such “unitary review” allows “defendants with shorter prison sentences or probationary sentences the prospect of litigating their consti tutional claims sounding in tria l counsel ineffectiveness; f or many of these defendants, post

- appeal PCRA review may prove unavailable.” Id. at 622. Ott may fall into the category of defendants for whom PCRA relief may be unavailable due to his short sentence , and for whom a Holmes exception may be appropriate

. Furthermore, Ott may have grounds to claim ineffectiveness of counsel if he did not voluntarily consent to have his blood drawn under Birchfield and Evans , since no post
- sentence motions were filed preserving his right to chal l enge the validity of his plea

. Indeed, the plea colloquy specifically notes that the Affidavit of Probable Cause and the Toxicological Report formed the basis of Ott’s guilty plea. N.T. Sentencing, 11/6/17, at 6

. Whether Ott may claim counsel ’s ineffectiveness for failing to address the possible Birchfield issue hinges on the content of the warnings on the form he was read before cons enting to have his blood drawn. As notedJ

- S31029

- 18

- 7

-

above, t he record before us does not reflect whether the officer used the pre Birchfield DL

- 26 form or the revised version of the form, the DL

- 26B. Thus, we are unable to conclude that there are no non - frivolous issues or that the appeal is wholly frivolous. In sum, our review of the certified record indicates that the fo rm the officer read to Ott has not been included in the record submitted to this Court. Without this form, neither counsel nor this Court can fulfill its obligations under Anders and its progeny. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Upon remand, counsel must obtain the form used at Ott’s arrest and ensure its inclusion in the certified record within twenty days of the filing of this decision

. After review of the entire certified record, counsel shall, within thirty days, file either an advocate’s brief or a new petition to withdraw and

an Anders brief that fully complies with t he requirements detailed abov e. The Commonwealth shall have fifteen days to file a response brief or notify this Court that it does not intend to file a response brief. Motion for leave to withdraw denied. Case remanded with inst ructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.J

- S31029

- 18

- 8

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/13/18