Court Opinion

ID: 9765995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:28:14.863438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.228063
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge
(dissenting).
I believe appellant’s counsel should be permitted to withdraw, for I conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California,, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968).
Just as it has often been said that beauty is more than skin deep, so too can that be said of merit. It seems to me that the majority opinion dresses this appeal so that it appears to have merit, however, upon a deeper examination I am convinced that it is frivolous.
Here counsel had examined and presented issues which, it is concluded have no merit. Frivolous is a word that describes a matter of little value or importance, a thing which is trifling, trivial or paltry. Commonwealth v. Greer, 455 Pa. 106, 314 A.2d 513 (1974), states that the distinction between frivolity and lack of merit is crucial. In practice, however, I suspect that the distinction is one without a difference.
In addition to a ten page brief filed by counsel, we also have the benefit of a thirteen page Supplemental Brief filed by the appellant himself and an excellent ten page brief filed on appellant’s behalf by Marjorie H. Matson, Esq. which was written prior to her withdrawal as counsel and the appointment of present counsel made.
I have no difficulty, therefore, in my conclusion, that advocacy of counsel is indeed present, that the appeal is frivolous and the counsel should be permitted to withdraw.
*194Since this is an appeal allowed nunc pro tunc from a judgment of sentence imposed on May, 9, 1972, I wish to add one further point of departure from the majority opinion. To my view this nunc pro tunc appeal is not governed by the procedures of Commonwealth v. Lee, 460 Pa. 324, 333 A.2d 749 (1975); Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa.Super. 336, 352 A.2d 140 (1975), and therefore the filing of a petition to withdraw is not a step necessary to perfect an appeal.
Not only would I permit counsel to withdraw, but since we have heard from appellant in propria persona and I find no merit to any of the contentions of error, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.
WATKINS, President Judge, and VAN der VOORT, J., join this dissenting opinion.