Court Opinion

ID: 9952739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 16:14:41.135772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:05.060070
License: Public Domain

J-S09035-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
              v.                            :
                                            :
                                            :
 ULYSSES JAVIER CORTES                      :
                                            :
                   Appellant                :     No. 1387 EDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-39-CR-0003138-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BECK, J.:                              FILED MARCH 20, 2024

     Ulysses Javier Cortes appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to aggravated assault. On appeal, Cortes’ appellate

counsel, Attorney Michael E. Brunnabend (“Attorney Brunnabend”) has filed

an application to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.

2009). We conclude, however, that Attorney Brunnabend has not fulfilled the

technical mandates of Anders/Santiago based upon his indication to Cortes

that he has the right to proceed with the appeal, in relevant part, by

requesting that this Court appoint “alternative” counsel. Because Attorney

Brunnabend    failed   to   comply   with       the   technical   requirements   of

Anders/Santiago, we instruct him to cure the defect before we address the

appeal.
J-S09035-24

      Pursuant to Anders/Santiago, when an attorney believes that an

appeal is wholly frivolous and wishes to withdraw as counsel, he or she must

      (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after
      making a conscientious examination of the record and
      interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal
      would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the
      record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to
      defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to
      raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s
      attention.

Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations omitted). More specifically, regarding the third obligation, counsel

must advise 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/Santiago] brief.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86

A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

      In his letter to Cortes explaining his application to withdraw, Attorney

Brunnabend informed Cortes that he could proceed with the appeal by

“obtain[ing] counsel of your own choosing, or request[ing] the appointment

of counsel from the Superior Court or the local Court should you feel that there

is a reason for the same.” Letter, 10/26/23, at 2-3 (unnumbered); see also

Application to Withdraw as Counsel, 10/26/23, ¶ 6 (“The Defendant, [Cortes],

has further been advised that he has the right to proceed with this appeal by

the filing of his own responsive brief … pro se, or by proceeding with counsel

                                     -2-
J-S09035-24

of his own choosing, and retain such counsel[,] or[] by requesting from the

Court the appointment of other alternative counsel, if he should so choose.”).

      There is no authority providing for the appointment of new counsel by

this Court when counsel has filed an application to withdraw pursuant to

Anders/Santiago. See Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752

(Pa. Super. 2005) (denying counsel’s motion to withdraw where counsel

incorrectly stated that appellant was entitled to “different court-appointed

counsel.”).    Pointedly,   this   Court   has   previously   informed   Attorney

Brunnabend that such a statement to a client as part of an application to

withdraw pursuant to Anders/Santiago is erroneous and unsupported by the

law. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hein, 3053 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 6378110

at *2 n.3 (Pa. Super. Sept. 29, 2023) (non-precedential decision) (allowing

Attorney Brunnabend to withdraw representation despite the fact his letter to

appellant and petition to withdraw informed appellant that he “was entitled to

appointment of new or ‘alternative’ counsel,” but cautioning “counsel to refrain

from suggesting this option in the future”); Commonwealth v. Coles, 1277

EDA 2022, 2023 WL 2544661 at *2 (Pa. Super. Mar. 17, 2023) (non-

precedential decision) (noting that in his petition to withdraw, Attorney

Brunnabend incorrectly advised appellant of a purported right to new counsel

“by requesting from the Court the appointment of other alternative counsel, if

he should so choose”).

                                      -3-
J-S09035-24

      Therefore, we direct Attorney Brunnabend to file a proper application to

withdraw as counsel, correctly informing Cortes of his rights within 10 days of

the filing of this Judgment Order.    Additionally, Cortes shall be given the

opportunity, if he chooses, to file a brief pro se or with new counsel within 45

days of receiving Attorney Brunnabend’s application to withdraw as counsel.

See Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 901 (Pa. Super. 2007);

Millisock, 873 A.2d at 752.

      Application to withdraw as counsel denied. Jurisdiction retained.

Date: 3/20/2024

                                     -4-