Court Opinion

ID: 9386472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:06:44.401076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.520479
License: Public Domain

J-A08043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ANTHONY LAMAUR GERMANY                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 916 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 28, 2018
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-SA-0001936-2018

BEFORE: STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                       FILED: April 12, 2023

        Anthony Lamaur Germany (Germany) appeals nunc pro tunc from the

judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny

County (trial court) for Driving While Operating Privileges are Suspended

(DUS).1 The judgment was entered after the trial court dismissed Germany’s

summary appeal for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing without

explanation. Counsel has filed a petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm and grant counsel’s petition to

withdraw.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a).
J-A08043-23

      We take the following background facts and procedural history from the

trial court’s September 29, 2022 opinion and our independent review of the

record.

                                       I.

      On September 28, 2018, the Magisterial District Court convicted

Germany of DUS that occurred on February 22, 2018. On October 10, 2018,

Germany filed a counseled summary appeal to the trial court. The notice of

summary appeal contained the date (11/28/18), time and place for the

hearing.   (See Petition to File Motion for Reconsideration Nunc Pro Tunc,

10/15/21, at Exhibit A). In the meantime, on November 6, 2018, Germany

entered a negotiated plea agreement with the assistance of counsel in a

separate case (6235-2018).        On November 20, 2018, Germany was

transported from the Allegheny County Jail to SCI Pine Grove to begin serving

his sentence.

      At the scheduled November 28, 2018 hearing in this matter, Assistant

Public Defender Alan Skwarla appeared on Germany’s behalf. Germany was

not present and Attorney Skwarla reported that he did not know Germany’s

whereabouts. After noting that neither Germany nor anyone on his behalf had

communicated with the court to explain his absence, Judge W. Terrence

O’Brien dismissed his summary appeal and adjudged him guilty of DUS based

on the Magisterial District Court’s verdict, sentencing him to 90 days in county

                                     -2-
J-A08043-23

jail, plus costs.   (See N.T. Summary Appeal, 11/28/18, at 2); (Order,

11/28/18, at 1).

      Approximately two years later, on November 15, 2020, Germany was

paroled for case number 6235-2018.       Nearly a year later, on October 15,

2021, Germany’s privately retained counsel filed a petition to file a motion for

reconsideration of the DUS conviction nunc pro tunc. Germany argued that

he was not present for the summary appeal hearing because he was

incarcerated and was unable to file his motion sooner because he was paroled

during the COVID-19 pandemic that precluded him from accessing the courts

and obtaining counsel. (See Petition to File Motion for Reconsideration Nunc

Pro Tunc, at ¶¶ 6-10).    The Commonwealth responded that Germany was

represented by multiple counsel at all relevant times and, therefore, he “had

more than ample opportunities to make his attorneys aware of this pending

summary appeal to file the appropriate court pleadings.” (Commonwealth’s

Response to Germany’s Petition to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, 5/06/22, at

¶ 14). Further, the Commonwealth maintained that the trial court “was open

and available during the year of the COVID pandemic” so Germany could have

filed the appropriate motions much sooner than October 15, 2021. (See id.

at ¶¶ 12-16). Judge O’Brien denied the petition on June 1, 2022.

      After the 30 days had passed to appeal the denial of his petition for

reconsideration, on July 12, 2022, Germany filed a pro se petition for

permission to appeal to this Court nunc pro tunc in which he again stated that

                                     -3-
J-A08043-23

he was incarcerated on November 18, 2020, and was found guilty because the

prison did not bring him to court. (See Petition to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc,

7/12/22, at 1). On August 5, 2022, after hearing no evidence, Judge Wrenna

Watson granted the petition. That same day, Germany filed a pro se notice

of appeal with the trial court. On August 15, 2022, Judge O’Brien issued an

order, mailed to Germany at the residential address he used for filing the

appeal, directing the filing of a concise statement within 21 days.

       Because a concise statement was not filed, Judge O’Brien filed a Rule

1925 opinion finding that Germany waived any claims he wished to raise. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2 After this Court issued the briefing schedule, Germany

sought the appointment of appellate counsel.       (Anders Brief, at 8).   On

October 19, 2022, appellate counsel entered her appearance on Germany’s

behalf, and on December 8, 2022, counsel filed an Anders brief and petition

to withdraw to which Germany has not responded.

____________________________________________

2 The trial court maintains that Germany’s appellate issues are waived for his
failure to file the court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. This Court strictly
adheres to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that if a defendant fails to file
a court-ordered statement of errors to be raised on appeal, he has waived his
appellate issues. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998);
see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). However, in order to decide counsel’s
petition to withdraw, Anders requires that we examine the merits of
Germany’s claim. Despite Germany’s waiver, we will review his issue’s merits.
See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 831 A.2d 656, 659-60 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(observing that where counsel has petitioned to withdraw, appellate court
must review issues even though waived for failure to file Rule 1925(b)
statement).

                                           -4-
J-A08043-23

                                      II.

                                      A.

      Before reaching Germany’s issue, we must consider counsel’s request

to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super.

2009). It is well-settled that:

      Court-appointed counsel who seek to withdraw from representing
      an appellant on direct appeal on the basis that the appeal is
      frivolous must:

        (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
        making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel
        has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a
        brief referring to anything that arguably might support the
        appeal but which does not resemble a “no-merit” letter or
        amicus curiae brief; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the
        defendant and advise the defendant of his or her right to
        retain new counsel or raise any additional points that he or
        she deems worthy of the court’s attention.

Id.(citations omitted).

      Further, our Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), that Anders briefs must contain “a discussion of

counsel’s reasons for believing that the client’s appeal is frivolous[.]”

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 360.

      Counsel’s Anders brief and petition to withdraw substantially comply

with the applicable technical requirements and reveal that she has made “a

conscientious examination of the record [and] determined that the appeal

would be frivolous[.]” Lilley, 978 A.2d at 997 (citation omitted). Additionally,

the record establishes that counsel served Germany with a copy of the Anders

                                     -5-
J-A08043-23

brief and application to withdraw and a letter of notice, which advised him of

his right to retain new counsel or to proceed pro se and raise additional issues

to this Court. See id.; (see also Petition to Withdraw, 12/08/22, Appendix

C, at 1). Furthermore, the petition and brief cite “to anything that arguably

might support the appeal[.]” Lilley, 978 A.2d at 997 (citation omitted); (see

also Anders Brief, at 10-21).

       Having concluded that counsel’s petition and brief comply with the

technical Anders requirements, we must “conduct [our] own review of the

trial court’s proceedings and render an independent judgment as to whether

the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.”          Lilley, 978 A.2d at 998 (citation

omitted).

                                               B.

       Germany challenges that the trial court abused its discretion when it

dismissed his summary appeal and adjudicated him guilty of DUS for his

failure to appear.3

____________________________________________

3 Our standard of review of whether a trial court properly dismissed a
summary appeal:

       … is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law
       and whether the findings of the trial court are supported by
       competent evidence. The adjudication of the trial court will not
       be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An
       abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate
       court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a
       result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias,
       or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A08043-23

       Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure govern trial de novo after an

appeal of a summary conviction. The rule holds that “[i]f the defendant fails

to appear, the trial judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the

court of common pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority.”

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).

       The Comment to Rule 462(D) provides that “[p]aragraph (D) makes it

clear that the trial judge may dismiss a summary case appeal when the judge

determines that the defendant is absent without cause from the trial de novo.”

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462, cmt.          “Therefore, before a trial court may dismiss a

summary appeal for failure to appear, the court must ascertain whether the

absentee defendant had cause for his absence.”             Commonwealth v.

Maslonek, 262 A.3d 457, 2021 WL 3281230, at *1 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 2,

2021).

       The Dixon Court further observes that:

       The problem that arises in these types of cases is that, for a quite
       obvious reason, trial courts often dismiss the appeals without
       inquiring into whether the absentee defendant had good cause:
       the person who could offer cause for the absence is the absent
       defendant himself. In other words, there is no one present in the
       courtroom whom the trial judge can question regarding the
       reasons for the absence. Moreover, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
       720(D), a defendant in a summary appeal case is not permitted
       to file post-sentence motions. The trial court cannot question an
       absent defendant regarding the cause of the absence, and the
____________________________________________

Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).

                                           -7-
J-A08043-23

       defendant cannot file post-sentence motions to explain the
       absence.    Consequently, this Court often must address the
       necessary cause inquiry arising from Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 in the first
       instance. …

Id. (citing Dixon, 66 A.3d at 796-97).

       … [A] new trial is required when: (1) a trial court dismisses a
       summary appeal considering whether the absentee defendant had
       cause to justify the absence; and (2) the absentee defendant
       presents an affidavit on appeal that (assuming the assertions
       delineated in the affidavit are true) presents at least a prima facie
       demonstration that cause existed for the absence, rendering that
       absence involuntary.

Id.at *2 (citing Dixon, 66 A.3d at 797).

       Judge O’Brien explains that at the November 28, 2018 hearing, he

“noted on the record that court staff had informed [him] that neither

[Germany] nor anyone on his behalf had contacted the court to explain his

absence.” (Trial Court Opinion, 9/29/22, at 2). Because “there [was] no one

present in the courtroom whom the trial judge [could] question regarding the

reasons for the absence,” the court could not consider whether Germany “had

cause to justify the absence” before dismissing the summary appeal and

entering judgment based on the magistrate judge’s finding of guilt. Dixon,

66 A.3d at 797.

       However, nearly three years later, Germany filed a motion for

reconsideration4 in which he explained he entered a guilty plea in an unrelated

____________________________________________

4  Although pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D) Germany was not permitted to
file a post-sentence motion, the court accepted and considered the post-
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -8-
J-A08043-23

case on November 6, 2018, and was transported from Allegheny County to a

state facility on November 20, 2018, which precluded him from attending the

November 28, 2018 hearing. The Anders brief maintains that the prison’s

failure to transport Germany to the hearing on November 28, 2018, was a

breakdown in court procedure. (See Anders Brief, at 18).

       This is not persuasive.            Germany’s notice of summary appeal

conspicuously identifies the time, date and location of his de novo hearing.

(See Notice of Summary Appeal, 10/10/18). He was represented by multiple

counsel at the time he entered his plea on November 6, 2018, and there is no

evidence or even allegation that he advised counsel of the pending summary

appeal so that they could contact the trial court or file any appropriate

documents on his behalf. In fact, he offers no explanation for why he could

not contact the court himself.5 Accordingly, his averments are insufficient to

____________________________________________

sentence filing.   Additionally, while he did not file the sworn affidavit
referenced in Dixon, it is clear from his filings what he alleges his reasons
were for missing the hearing.

5 The Commonwealth and Germany’s Anders counsel observe that Germany
is not due relief where the trial court erred in granting his petition to appeal
nunc pro tunc on August 5, 2022, because he did not act in a timely manner.
(See Anders Brief, at 13) (the trial court “granted his request to appeal … in
error.”); (Commonwealth’s Brief, at 7) (Germany “did not act promptly to seek
nunc pro tunc relief.”). However, the August 5, 2022 order granting nunc pro
tunc relief is not before us for review because the Commonwealth did not
appeal it and, although the cases it cites support its position, they are
procedurally inapposite because they involved Commonwealth appeals.
However, we are compelled to note that based on the record before us,
Germany’s delay in seeking appellate relief on the trial court’s November 28,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -9-
J-A08043-23

warrant relief and the court did not commit an error of law and its findings are

supported by competent evidence. See Dixon, 66 A.3d at 796.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.              Petition to withdraw as counsel

granted.

       Judge Sullivan joins the Memorandum.

       Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/12/2023

____________________________________________

2018 judgment of sentence was unreasonable where he fails to provide any
persuasive reason for why he waited years to do so. See Commonwealth
v. Savage, 234 A.3d 723, 727 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“the touchstone for nunc
pro tunc relief is whether Appellant was denied [his] right of appeal by
circumstances not of [his] own doing so as to merit the grant of this
extraordinary remedy.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As observed by the Commonwealth and Anders counsel, even if Germany’s
failure to advise the court that he could not appear at the November 28, 2018
hearing was not his own fault (which it was), he did not seek nunc pro tunc
appellate relief until 11 months after he was paroled and nearly four years
after the summary conviction’s entry. Although he claims that this delay was
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this is wholly unpersuasive since the court
was open before the pandemic and when he was paroled on November 20,
2020, and, therefore, was not “denied [his] right of appeal by circumstances
not of [his] own doing.” Id.

                                          - 10 -