Court Opinion

ID: 9380228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 17:08:38.166498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.612463
License: Public Domain

J-S43024-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    GARY PAUL COLES                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1277 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 14, 2022,
                 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001199-2021.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                           FILED MARCH 17, 2023

        Gary Paul Coles appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed after

he pled guilty to sexual abuse of children. Additionally, Coles’ counsel filed a

petition to withdraw representation and an accompanying brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon review, we grant counsel’s

petition, and affirm the judgment of sentence.

        On October 4, 2021, Coles entered an open guilty plea to one count of

sexual abuse of children (dissemination of child pornography) and 19 counts

of sexual abuse of children (possession of child pornography).1 Following a

hearing, the trial court sentenced Coles to an aggregate term of 24 to 60

months’ incarceration. No post-sentence motion was filed.

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6312(c) and (d).
J-S43024-22

      Coles filed this timely appeal. Counsel filed a petition to withdraw from

representation and an Anders brief with this Court.       Coles did not retain

independent counsel or file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

      Before we may consider the issues raised in the Anders brief, we must

first consider counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation.           See

Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding

that, when presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the

merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to

withdraw). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous

and wishes to withdraw from representation, counsel must do the following:

      (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after
      making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
      determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring
      to any issues that might arguably support the appeal, but which
      does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the
      brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new
      counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points [the
      defendant] deems worthy of this Court's attention.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citation omitted).   In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.

2009), our Supreme Court addressed the second requirement of Anders, i.e.,

the contents of an Anders brief, and required that the brief:

      (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 conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

                                     -2-
J-S43024-22

      (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.            Once counsel has satisfied the Anders

requirements, it is then this Court’s responsibility “to 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).

      Here, counsel filed both an Anders brief and a petition for leave to

withdraw as counsel.          Counsel's brief substantially complies with our

standards.      Additionally, counsel's petition technically satisfies the above

requirements: the petition states 1) that counsel made a conscientious review

of the record and concluded that there were no meritorious issues and that

the appeal was frivolous; and 2) that Coles was sent a copy of both the

Anders brief and the petition, along with a letter explaining his rights.

      However, counsel’s letter to Coles misstates his rights.            Counsel

incorrectly advised Coles that he may “request the appointment of counsel

from the Superior Court should you feel that there are reasons for the same.”

Additionally, in his petition to withdraw, counsel incorrectly advises Coles of a

purported right to new counsel “by requesting from the Court the appointment

of other alternative counsel, if he should so choose.” Nevertheless, we decline

to remand the matter for counsel to correct the deficiencies when this would

                                        -3-
J-S43024-22

serve no purpose other than to delay resolution of this appeal and waste

judicial resources.2 See e.g. In re Adoption of V.G., 751 A2d 1174, 1178

(Pa. Super. 2000).       Because Coles’ issue is patently frivolous, this matter

presents a rare instance where we decline to remand for a more accurate

explanation of his rights. We will address the merits of Coles’ issue.

       In the Anders brief, counsel sets forth one issue that Coles wishes to

raise: Whether Coles’ sentence was manifestly excessive because the trial

court focused on the severity of the offense and failed to fully and adequately

consider any of the relevant factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9721(b). See

Anders Brief at 10. This issue challenges the discretionary aspects of Coles’

sentence. “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle

an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d

162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). This Court has explained that, to reach the merits

of a discretionary sentencing issue, we must conduct a four-part analysis to

determine:

       (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [a]ppellant
       preserved his issue; (3) whether [a]pellant's brief includes a
       concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of
       appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [in
       accordance with 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement
       raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate
       under the sentencing code. . . . [I]f the appeal satisfies each of
       these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the
       substantive merits of the case.

____________________________________________

2We note that Coles did not request the appointment of counsel with this
Court. Thus, counsel’s advice did not mislead Coles.

                                           -4-
J-S43024-22

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

      Here, Coles has satisfied the first and third requirements of Colon.

However, upon review of the record, we observe that Coles failed to file a

post-sentence motion or raise the issue with the trial court at sentencing.

Because Coles failed to preserve a discretionary aspects of sentence issue

either in a post-sentence motion or at the time of sentencing, he waived his

discretionary aspects of sentencing issue on appeal. “An issue that is waived

is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888–89 (Pa. Super.

2016); see also Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 291 (Pa.

Super. 2008) (“Having been waived, pursuing this matter on direct appeal is

frivolous.”). Coles’ sentencing issue is frivolous.

      Furthermore, as required by Anders, we have independently reviewed

the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues present in

this case. Our review of the record discloses no other non-frivolous issues

that Coles could raise that counsel overlooked. See Dempster, supra.

      Having concluded that there are no meritorious issues, we grant

counsel’s petition to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Petition to withdraw as counsel granted.        Judgment of sentence

affirmed.

                                      -5-
J-S43024-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/17/2023

                          -6-