Court Opinion

ID: 9894715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 17:10:44.897026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:24.471926
License: Public Domain

J-S26044-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BRENT ELI MORRIS                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2506 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 15, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-23-CR-0002862-2022

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2023

       Brent Eli Morris appeals the judgment of sentence. He pleaded guilty

under the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act to unlawful

taking/claiming/manipulating with intent to defraud/cheat.1 Counsel has filed

a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief.2 We affirm and grant counsel’s

petition to withdraw.

       Morris entered a negotiated guilty plea to the above-referenced offense

on September 15, 2022. See Guilty Plea Statement, filed 9/15/22. The court

imposed the agreed-upon sentence of nine to 23 months’ incarceration

followed by one year reporting probation. See Certificate of Imposition of

Sentence, filed 9/15/22. It also imposed restitution in the amount of $4,000

____________________________________________

1 4 Pa.C.S.A. § 1518(a)(17).

2   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S26044-23

and ordered Morris to stay away from Harrah’s Casino. See id. This timely

appeal followed.

      As stated above, Morris’s counsel has filed an Anders brief and

Application to Withdraw as Counsel. “When faced with a purported Anders

brief, this Court may not review the merits of any possible underlying issues

without first examining counsel’s request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v.

Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). Prior to

withdrawing pursuant Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the

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

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

      Counsel must provide his client with a copy of the Anders brief. Counsel

must also advise the client of the client’s 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

                                     -2-
J-S26044-23

877, 880 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). If counsel has satisfied these

requirements, this Court must then conduct “a full examination of all the

proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth

v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 271 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted)

(emphasis removed).

      Here, in the Anders brief, counsel provides a procedural and factual

history of the case, with citations to the record, discusses the issues arguably

supporting the appeal, and explains why counsel concludes those issues are

frivolous. Anders Br. at 3-15. Counsel’s letter to Morris states that he

enclosed a copy of the Anders brief and advises him of his right to retain new

counsel or act on his own behalf and raise additional points before this Court.

Morris did not submit a response to the Anders brief. Counsel has met

Santiago’s requirements. We therefore turn to whether the appeal is, as

counsel alleges, wholly frivolous.

      Counsel lists two issues in the Anders brief:

         1. Whether the sentence of restitution should be vacated as
         the restitution amount ordered was not supported by the
         record[;]

         2. Whether plea counsel was ineffective in failing to provide
         adequate information and advi[c]e regarding the impact of
         [Morris’s] guilty plea on an out-of-state detainer[.]

Anders Br. at 2.

      The first issue challenges the court’s imposition of restitution. He alleges

that there was no evidence supporting the amount ordered by the court. Such

a   claim   challenges    the   discretionary   aspects    of   sentence.    See

                                      -3-
J-S26044-23

Commonwealth v. Weir, 239 A.3d 25, 38 (Pa. 2020). Before reviewing the

merits of a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence, this Court must

first determine whether: “(1) the appeal is timely; (2) the appellant has

preserved his issue; (3) his brief includes a concise statement of the reasons

relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects

of his sentence; and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question

whether the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.”

Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 488 (Pa.Super. 2019).

      Here, the second prong is unmet. Morris did not file a post-sentence

motion raising this discretionary sentencing issue. Therefore, he did not

preserve it for appeal. See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030,

1042 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc) (stating claims challenging discretionary

aspects of sentence must be raised in post-sentence motion or at sentencing,

and the failure to do so results in waiver). This sentencing claim is therefore

waived and wholly frivolous for direct appeal.

      The ineffectiveness claim is also frivolous at this stage. Generally, a

criminal defendant cannot litigate ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal.

Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 738 (Pa. 2002), overruled in part

on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa.

2021) (holding that Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petitioners “may, after

a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se,

raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so,

even if on appeal”).

                                      -4-
J-S26044-23

      There are exceptions to the general rule: (1) in extraordinary

circumstances where claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness are apparent

from the record and immediate consideration best serves the interests of

justice; and (2) where there is good cause shown and unitary review of the

claim is preceded by a waiver of the right to seek review under the PCRA.

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 563-64 (Pa. 2013). A third

exception requires “trial courts to address claims challenging trial counsel’s

performance where the defendant is statutorily precluded from obtaining

subsequent PCRA review.” Commonwealth v. Delgros, 183 A.3d 352, 361

(Pa. 2018).

      None of these exceptions apply here. We therefore cannot review the

ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal. We have reviewed the record and have

found no non-frivolous claims for appeal. We therefore grant counsel’s petition

to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

Date: 11/2/2023

                                     -5-