Court Opinion

ID: 9945324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:10:45.594238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.838797
License: Public Domain

J-S43010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                 v.                            :
                                               :
                                               :
  OLVIN SANTIAGO CASTRO III                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1016 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 22, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-38-CR-0000855-2022

BEFORE:      McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: FEBRUARY 27, 2024

       Olvin Santiago Castro III appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered following his conviction for manufacture, delivery, or possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”). 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

Counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and petition to withdraw as counsel. We

deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand to allow counsel to request

relevant notes of testimony.

       In January 2023, Castro pled guilty to PWID. On March 22, 2023, the

trial court sentenced him to a standard range sentence of four to 10 years’

incarceration.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S43010-23

      On April 21, 2023, while still represented by counsel, Castro filed a pro

se   document    titled,   “Appeal   for   Reconsideration   of   Sentence   and

Uneffectiveness of Counsel.” Both above the title of the document and below

his signature at the end of the document, Castro had written “Superior Court

of Pennsylvania.” The document requested that “this court” reconsider “this

sentence.” Appeal for Reconsideration, filed Apr. 21, 2023, at 1. It further

argued his counsel was ineffective. He requested that “this court . . .

reconsider and reverse or adjust or modify this sentence.” Id. at 2. That same

day, counsel filed a petition to withdraw, noting that the pro se motion was

outside the 10-day period for the filing of post-sentence motions. Counsel

stated he believed the motion should be treated as a Post Conviction Relief

Act petition. Petition to Withdraw as Counsel, filed Apr. 21, 2023, at ¶¶ 5-6.

      The trial court treated the pro se filing as a motion to reconsider the

sentence and denied it. The court further denied the petition to withdraw as

counsel “without prejudice to the ability of [counsel] to resubmit his request

if [Castro] does not contact him within 30 days.” Order, dated May 17, 2023.

In the order, the court noted the possibility of an appeal and stated that “time

is of the essence with respect to the filing of such an appeal.” Id. On July 3,

2023, counsel filed a notice of appeal. In it, counsel stated that, “[Castro]

intends that his filing for his Motion for Modification of Sentence on April 21,

2023, within the thirty (30) day time frame for an appeal, constitutes an

                                      -2-
J-S43010-23

appeal and not a [m]otion to [m]odify sentence nor a Post-Conviction Relief

Act Application.” Notice of appeal, filed July 3, 2023.2

       In this Court, counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw

as counsel, asserting that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Castro did not

respond to counsel’s Anders brief.

       Before we assess the substance of the Anders brief, we must first

determine whether counsel’s request to withdraw meets certain procedural

requirements. See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290

(Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). An Anders brief that accompanies a request to

withdraw 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.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

       Counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders brief to the client, and

a letter that advises the client of the right to “(1) retain new counsel to pursue

____________________________________________

2 We point out that the pro se motion was not a timely post-sentence motion,

and therefore would not have tolled the time to file a notice of appeal.
However, the trial court should have treated the filing as a notice of appeal
and therefore we conclude this appeal was timely.

                                           -3-
J-S43010-23

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,

880 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349,

353 (Pa.Super. 2007)). If counsel has satisfied these requirements, we then

conduct “a full examination” of the record “to decide whether the case is

wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 271

(Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).

      Here, our review reveals that the notes of testimony from the guilty plea

hearing, sentencing hearing, and any hearing on post-sentence filings are not

part of the certified record. It appears that counsel did not order the

transcripts. Without them, “[c]ounsel could not have fulfilled his duty to review

the entire record for any non-frivolous issues.” See Commonwealth v.

Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250-51 (Pa.Super. 2015) (denying petition to

withdraw as counsel and remanding case where counsel failed to include notes

of testimony from guilty plea hearing in certified record). Nor could counsel

“provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the

record,” or “refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably

supports the appeal.” See Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Moreover, without the

notes of testimony, this Court cannot fulfill its duty of ensuring there are no

non-frivolous issues.

      Accordingly, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand for

counsel to obtain the missing notes of testimony and to file either a new

                                      -4-
J-S43010-23

Anders brief and petition to withdraw or an advocate’s brief, within 60 days

from the date of this order.

      Petition   to   withdraw   as   counsel   denied.   Case   remanded   with

instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.

                                       -5-