Court Opinion

ID: 9910146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 20:10:02.906773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:02.195680
License: Public Domain

J-S39041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RAUL COSME, JR.                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 413 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 22, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-35-CR-0000132-2021

BEFORE:       DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                        FILED DECEMBER 14, 2023

       Raul Cosme, Jr. (Appellant), appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his guilty

plea to criminal attempt to commit indecent assault and false imprisonment.1

Contemporaneous with this appeal, Appellant’s counsel, Kurt T. Lynott,

Esquire (Counsel), has filed a petition to withdraw from representation and an

Anders brief.        The Anders2 brief raises a challenge to the discretionary

aspects of sentencing in light of mitigating factors.3 For the reasons below,

we affirm the judgment of sentence and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 3126(a)(1), 2903(a), respectively.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

3 The Commonwealth has filed a letter, stating it would not file a brief.
J-S39041-23

      On September 30, 2022, Appellant pled guilty to one count each of

attempted indecent assault and false imprisonment. He was represented by

Counsel. The underlying incident occurred on January 7, 2021, at the Price

Chopper in Taylor Borough, Lackawanna County where Appellant and the

victim, Marcy Drucker (the victim), both worked. Trial Ct. Op., 5/11/23, at 1

(unpaginated).

      We glean the following factual summary from the trial court opinion.

      [The victim] stated that around 7:00 p.m. she was working in the
      Food Court at Price Chopper when . . . Appellant . . . began acting
      inappropriately toward her, stating that he wanted to see her
      naked and showing her inappropriate, pornographic videos. The
      victim relayed that Appellant, while he exposed himself, also
      asked her if she could put his penis in her mouth. Appellant then
      grabbed the victim’s hand and tried to force her to touch his penis,
      but the victim refused, stating that she was uncomfortable.

             Later that same evening, the victim went to the second floor
      of the building to use the Women’s Restroom. While she was
      sitting on the toilet with her underwear down, Appellant opened
      the stall and, while fondling his exposed penis, stated that “it
      wouldn’t take longer than five minutes.” Appellant then picked
      the victim up off the toilet, tried to kiss her, and ultimately tossed
      her to the floor, all while his erect penis was still exposed. At that
      time, another female employee entered the Women’s Restroom,
      causing Appellant to flee . . . .

Id. at 1-2 (record citations omitted & paragraph break added).

      On February 22, 2023, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing.

A pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) was filed; Appellant reviewed it and

                                      -2-
J-S39041-23

raised no objection nor exception.4 N.T. Sentence, 2/22/23, at 5. The victim

shared the gravity of Appellant’s actions and its lasting impact on her life. Id.

at 3. Further, the trial court noted Appellant’s prior record score of five. Id.

at 6.    Appellant apologized for his conduct, and Counsel stated that he

supports his family. Id. at 8. Additionally, Counsel noted that Appellant was

treating for drugs or alcohol addiction. Id. at 6.

        The trial court sentenced Appellant to: (1) 12 to 24 months’

imprisonment on attempt to commit indecent assault; and (2) 6 to 12 months

on false imprisonment, to run consecutively.         N.T., 2/22/23, at 9.   Both

sentences are within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. Trial

Ct. Op. at 4. Appellant was also ordered to comply with SORNA registration

and notification requirements for a period of 15 years.5 N.T., 2/22/23, at 9.

____________________________________________

4 The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure vests a sentencing judge with

the discretion to order a PSI as an aid. Pa.R.Crim.P. 702(a)(1).

5 Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§

9799.10 to 9799.42. Appellant’s conviction of attempted assault, under
Subsection 3126(a)(1), is a Tier I offense, subjecting him to a 15-year
registration. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.14(b)(6), (22), 9799.15(a)(1).

      Furthermore, we note Counsel stated a sexually violent predator (SVP)
assessment was conducted and Appellant was deemed to be an SVP. N.T.,
2/22/23, at 5. In its opinion, the trial court stated it reviewed the SVP
assessment submitted by the Sexual Offender’s Assessment Board. Trial Ct.
Op. at 5. However, neither the opinion, nor any other filing in the certified
record, indicate Appellant was indeed found to be an SVP.

                                           -3-
J-S39041-23

       On    February     23,   2023,     Appellant   timely   filed   a   motion   for

reconsideration of sentence, which was denied by the trial court on the same

day. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on March 13, 2023.6 The

trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) statement, which was

timely filed. The trial court opinion concludes the sentencing was “within the

standard range of the sentencing guidelines and, given the gravity of the

offense as well as Appellant’s prior record score, this Court does not believe

that its sentence was unreasonable.” Trial Ct. Op. at 6.

       Counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to

Anders.7 Counsel attached a letter he sent to Appellant explaining his right

to retain new counsel or proceed pro se.

       This Court has stated:

       [We] must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before
       reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented[.]
____________________________________________

6 Generally, “[w]here a litigant is represented by an attorney before the Court
and the litigant submits for filing a petition, motion, brief or other type of
pleading in the matter, it shall not be accepted for filing, but noted on the
docket and forwarded to counsel of record.” Commonwealth v. Williams,
151 A.3d 621, 623 (Pa. Super. 2016), quoting Pa. Code § 65.24). However,
“[a] pro se notice of appeal received from the trial court shall be docketed,
even in instances where the pro se [appellant] was represented by counsel in
the trial court.” Id.

7 On July 19, 2023, this Court per curiam denied Counsel’s first Anders
petition and struck his Anders brief. The brief did not comply with Anders
requirements because Counsel neither referred to anything in the record that
Counsel believed arguably supported the appeal, nor stated his reasons for
concluding the appeal was frivolous. On August 9, 2023, Counsel filed a new
Anders petition and brief, which are presently before us for review.

                                           -4-
J-S39041-23

            Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under
      Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements
      established by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief must:

              (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

              (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.

      Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client.
      [Attached to] the brief must be a letter that advises 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 brief.”

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(citations omitted).

      “Once counsel has satisfied the above requirements, it is then this

Court’s duty to conduct its own review of the trial court’s proceedings and

render an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly

frivolous.”   Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 291 (Pa. Super.

2007) (en banc) (citation omitted).

      Instantly, Counsel has satisfied the technical requirements of Anders

and Santiago.      In Counsel’s Anders brief, he summarizes the pertinent

                                      -5-
J-S39041-23

factual and procedural history with citations to the record. Anders Brief at 5-

6. Counsel also states that after a conscientious review of the record and

applicable law, he concludes the appeal is frivolous. Id. at 7. Counsel also

attached to his petition a letter to Appellant meeting the notice requirements.

See Orellana, 86 A.3d at 880. Therefore, the brief and petition to withdraw

comply with the technical requirements of Anders and Santiago.

      The Anders brief then addresses one potential claim for our review:

      Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in denying [Appellant’s]
      Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence?

Anders Brief at 4.

      In the Anders brief, Counsel addresses whether the trial court erred in

denying Appellant’s post sentence motion.      Anders Brief at 6.    Appellant

argues the trial court failed to consider several mitigating factors in its

sentencing determination:

      At the time of sentence . . . Appellant noted that he was gainfully
      employed for nine . . . months. He did apologize for his actions.
      He was supporting his family and attending treatment and
      meetings . . . Appellant did not have a history of sexual offenses,
      but had a prior record score of five . . . . Appellant sought in[-]
      patient treatment and was under the influence at the time of his
      offense. Had the Trial Court considered these facts his Motion for
      Reconsideration of Sentence would have been granted.

Id. at 7 (record citations omitted).       Counsel cites relevant law on the

discretionary aspects of sentencing, and avers that “[t]he sentence imposed

by the Trial Court was within its discretion and within the standard guideline

range.” Id. at 7. Accordingly, Counsel suggests this appeal is frivolous.

                                     -6-
J-S39041-23

       We now proceed to our independent review of the record to determine

whether this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Goodwin, 928 A.2d at 291.

       It is well established that a challenge to the discretionary aspects of

sentencing    does   not   entitle   an   appellant   to   “review   as   of   right.”

Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en

banc). Rather,

       [b]efore this Court can address such a discretionary challenge, an
       appellant must comply with the following requirements:

       An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence
       must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
       (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
       Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
       preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
       sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief
       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.

Id. (citations omitted).

       In the present case, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider sentence and

filed a timely notice of appeal.     In addition, the Anders brief includes the

requisite Rule 2119(f) concise statement of reasons relief upon for appeal.

See Anders Brief at 6. Thus, Appellant has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction

as to a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim. See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at

768.

       Nevertheless, Appellant’s claim warrants no relief.           This Court has

stated:

                                          -7-
J-S39041-23

             Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
      absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
      sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
      judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, or
      arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 (citation omitted). Moreover, before imposing a

sentence, a trial court must consider the sentencing guidelines, as well as “the

factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b),” which include “the protection of the

public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the

victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”

42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). If the sentencing court has the benefit of a PSI, the

law presumes the court considered relevant information regarding the

defendant’s character and other mitigating factors.        Commonwealth v.

Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 366 n.6, 368 (Pa. Super. 2005).

      We note Section 9781(c) of the Sentencing Code provides:

          (c) Determination on appeal.—The appellate court shall
      vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court
      with instructions if it finds:

                (1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within
            the sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines
            erroneously;

                (2) the sentencing court sentenced within the
            sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances
            where the application of the guidelines would be clearly
            unreasonable; or

                (3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the
            sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.

                                      -8-
J-S39041-23

      In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence
      imposed by the sentencing court.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(1)-(3).

      A review of the record shows that prior to imposing Appellant’s

sentence, the trial court reviewed his PSI, which included his medical,

psychological, and social history, and considered argument from defense

counsel, as well as statements from Appellant and the victim. Trial Ct. Op. at

4. Importantly, the trial court considered “the nature and gravity of [the]

particular . . . offenses.” N.T., 2/22/23, at 9. The trial court noted Appellant’s

“significant prior criminal history, a prior record score of five” which was “the

highest any defendant can have.” Id. at 8.

      The trial court also properly considered the lasting impact of Appellant’s

crime on the victim, who testified she is “afraid to use public restrooms [and]

afraid to go anywhere by [her]self in fear that [Appellant] will be behind” her.

N.T., 2/22/23, at 3. She is in a “constant state of depression, anxiety, worry,

[and] fear.” Id.

      We conclude the trial court properly considered Appellant’s history, the

gravity of the offenses and the severe impact on the victim, as well as the

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). Lastly, both of

Appellant’s sentences are within the standard range of the sentencing

guidelines. Trial Ct. Op. at 4. Thus, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw,

and we affirm the judgment of sentence.

                                      -9-
J-S39041-23

     Counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation granted. Judgment

of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/14/2023

                                 - 10 -