Court Opinion

ID: 9961722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 16:12:46.236429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:24.886152
License: Public Domain

J-A07025-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 COLLIN ROBERT SHAAB                 :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :   No. 1078 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001558-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 COLLIN ROBERT SHAAB                 :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :   No. 1079 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001559-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 COLLIN ROBERT SHAAB                 :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :   No. 1080 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 28, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001596-2022
J-A07025-24

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                               FILED: APRIL 19, 2024

       Collin Robert Shaab (“Shaab”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

following his guilty pleas for three counts of robbery, three counts of terroristic

threats, two counts of theft by unlawful taking, and one count of threat to use

weapons of mass destruction.1 Shaab’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”) has filed

a petition to withdraw and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We affirm and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw.

       The facts of record indicate that on three separate days in March 2022,

Shaab went to bank drive-through windows and handed the teller a note

claiming he would detonate bombs surrounding the bank if not given money.

One teller gave him nearly $10,000 in response to his threat, and a second

gave him almost $1,200; he fled from the third bank before receiving any

money.     See N.T., 12/22/22, at 7-8.           In all three cases, the banks were

evacuated and bomb squads summoned. See id. at 8.

       On December 22, 2022, Shaab entered open guilty pleas to the above-

listed offenses.2     On separate bills of information, he pled guilty to three

counts of robbery as a felony of the first degree, three counts of terroristic

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iii), 3921(a), 2706(a)(2), 2715(a)(4).

2 Shaab also entered negotiated guilty pleas that day to other offenses.        He
did not file notices of appeal from the sentences in those cases.

                                           -2-
J-A07025-24

threats as a felony of the third degree, one count of theft by unlawful taking,

a misdemeanor of the first degree, and one count of threat to use weapons of

mass destruction, a misdemeanor of the first degree. See N.T., 12/22/22, at

3-4. Each of the robberies constituted a “second strike” offense carrying a

mandatory minimum ten-year term of imprisonment. See id. at 5.3 The court

determined Shaab entered knowing, intentional, and voluntary pleas and

deferred sentencing at the Commonwealth’s request. See id. at 8-10.

       In June 2023, the court convened a sentencing hearing.          Shaab’s

counsel provided corrections to the pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) report.

Plea counsel noted Shaab committed the charged crimes two months after

completing a ten-year sentence for armed robbery. Although it elected not to

seek a mandatory term for each of the three robberies, the Commonwealth

sought a sentence longer than the ten-year mandatory minimum for a single

“second strike.” See N.T., 6/28/23, at 4-7. At sentencing, plea counsel noted

Shaab’s completion of a drug and alcohol course, and prolonged history of

substance abuse. See id. at 7-14. Shaab exercised allocution. See id. at

14-17. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifteen to thirty years of

incarceration. See id. at 17-21.

       On July 11, 2023, plea counsel filed a post-sentence motion asserting

Shaab’s drug addiction, his family support, and his completion of drug and

alcohol treatment. Plea counsel argued Shaab received a manifestly excessive

____________________________________________

3 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a).

                                           -3-
J-A07025-24

sentence that failed to account for his addiction and his rehabilitative needs.

See Post-Sentence Motion at unnumbered 2-4. The court denied the post-

sentence motion.     Plea counsel withdrew from the case and the court

appointed Counsel. Counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) statement of intent

to withdraw, in lieu of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and an Anders brief.

The trial court did not file a Rule 1925(a) Opinion.    Shaab has not filed a

response to Counsel’s brief.

      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. See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super.

2010). Counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw

from representation 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) furnish a copy
      of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he
      or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
      arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court's
      attention.

Commonwealth v. Tejada, 176 A.3d 355, 359 (Pa. Super. 2017). See also

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc).

In Santiago, our Supreme Court addressed the second requirement of

Anders, i.e., the contents of an Anders brief, which requires that the brief:

      (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
      citations to the record;

                                     -4-
J-A07025-24

      (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
      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, this Court then has a duty to conduct its own review of the trial

court’s proceedings and make an independent determination whether the

appeal is wholly frivolous. See Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225,

1228 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Counsel avers in her petition to withdraw she reviewed the entire record

and concluded the appeal is frivolous. See Shaab’s Brief at 11. Counsel states

she sent a copy of the petition to withdraw and the Anders brief to Shaab, as

well as information explaining Shaab’s right to retain private counsel or

proceed pro se and raise any other argument Shaab believes is meritorious.

See Counsel’s Application for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 11/28/23, Exhibit

A.

      Counsel’s Anders brief includes a summary of the facts and procedural

history of the case, identifies the issues that could arguably support Shaab’s

appeal, explains why the issues lack merit, and includes citations to the

record. See id. We conclude Counsel has complied with the requirements of

                                     -5-
J-A07025-24

Anders. Accordingly, we will conduct an independent review of the record to

determine whether this appeal is wholly frivolous.

      Counsel identifies as possible appellate issues the voluntariness of

Shaab’s guilty plea, and challenges to the legality and discretionary aspects

of sentence.

      A guilty plea is constitutionally valid when the plea colloquy affirmatively

shows the defendant understood “what the pleas connoted and its

consequences.” See Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 832 (Pa.

2014) (citation omitted).    An appellate court examines the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the entry of a plea and will not deem a plea invalid

where the defendant has that full understanding and knowingly and voluntarily

decided to enter the plea. See id.

      Here, Counsel states Shaab has not alleged his pleas were not knowing

and voluntary, and further notes Shabb signed lengthy guilty plea colloquies

stating the charges against him. See Anders Brief at 12. Counsel explains

the court conducted a thorough, on-the-record, colloquy and informed Shaab

of the absence of a sentencing agreement and the maximum possible

sentence.      See id. at 13.      Additionally, Shaab did not dispute the

Commonwealth’s statement of the facts of the cases. See id.

      We agree that Shaab’s counsel cannot raise a non-frivolous challenge to

his guilty pleas. Shaab clearly understood the facts to which he pleaded guilty,

and the consequences of those pleas including the range of possible

                                      -6-
J-A07025-24

sentences. We have no difficulty affirming Shaab entered his pleas knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily. Eichinger, 108 A.3d at 832.4

       Counsel next identifies a possible issue concerning the legality of

Shaab’s sentence.

       A claim the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum raises a legality

challenge. See Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super.

2013).

       Counsel recognizes Shaab’s sentence was not illegal. For one of the

three robberies, the court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of ten

years for robbery as a felony of the first degree, which comported with the

“second strike” statute, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a), and the maximum ten-

to-twenty-year sentence for a first-degree felony, see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(1).

Shaab received a five-to-ten-year sentence for one of the other two robberies,

and a concurrent term of five to ten years for the third robbery. The court

imposed concurrent one-to-five-year sentences for terroristic threats, an

offense with a maximum sentence of seven years.         See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

1103(3). Finally, the court imposed concurrent one-to-five-year sentences

for theft and threat to use weapons of mass destruction, misdemeanors of the

first degree, punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. See 18 Pa.C.S.A.

____________________________________________

4 We also recognize Shaab received a benefit from pleading guilty to multiple

offenses at the same time as a means of obtaining a shorter aggregate
sentence, which would undermine any challenge to the knowing, intentional,
and voluntary nature of his plea.

                                           -7-
J-A07025-24

§ 1104(1).    All Shaab’s sentences were legal, and he could not raise a

nonfrivolous legality of sentence claim.

      The final possible issue Counsel identifies is a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of sentence.

      A discretionary aspects of sentence claim is not appealable as of right;

the appellant must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part

test. This Court must determine:

      (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
      Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
      presented at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
      sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant’s claim
      has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
      substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
      appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal

citations and brackets omitted).

      As Counsel acknowledges, challenges to the discretionary aspects of

sentence must be preserved at sentencing or in a timely post-sentence

motion, and Shaab’s post-sentence motion was filed one day out of time. See

Shaab’s Brief at 15-16, citing Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794

(Pa. 2003).   Thus, Shaab is not entitled to review of a challenge to the

discretionary aspects of his sentence.

      Counsel alternatively notes any possible discretionary aspects of

sentence claim would be without merit: Shaab received only one ten-year

minimum sentence for robbery, a five-year sentence for the second one, and

                                     -8-
J-A07025-24

a concurrent five-to-ten-year sentence for the third, and no factors existed

which would make the application of the sentencing guidelines clearly

unreasonable. See Anders Brief at 16-17.

      A court imposing sentence must consider the circumstances of the

offense and the defendant’s character. See Moury, 992 A.2d at 171. Where

the court has the benefit of a PSI, it will be assumed the court was aware of

relevant information concerning the defendant’s character and weighed it

along with mitigating statutory factors. See Commonwealth v. Devers, 546

A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988).    A court is not required to impose the “minimum

possible” confinement. See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 965

(Pa. 2007).

      We note Shaab could have received a sentence of thirty to sixty years

for the robberies alone, see Commonwealth v. Griffin, 207 A.3d 827, 833

(Pa. Super. 2019) (finding each crime of violence constituting a second strike

requires a ten-year minimum sentence), without regard to terroristic threats

or his other convictions. Here, the court imposed only a fifteen-to-thirty-year

sentence. Additionally, the court had the benefit of a PSI and is presumed to

have weighed mitigating factors like Shaab’s addiction against the facts that

he committed the three robberies only two months after release for a prior

armed robbery and that his crimes caused considerable fear and disruption.

Accordingly, we agree any discretionary sentencing challenge would be

meritless. See Walls, 926 A.2d at 965; Devers, 546 A.2d at 18.

                                     -9-
J-A07025-24

     Finally, our independent review of the record reveals no other arguably

meritorious issues Shaab could raise on appeal.   See Commonwealth v.

Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). Accordingly, we

grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm Shaab’s judgment of

sentence.

     Application to withdraw from representation granted.      Judgment of

sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/19/2024

                                  - 10 -