Court Opinion

ID: 9905968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 17:10:13.094587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:02.376673
License: Public Domain

J-S36013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 CLEO RUFFIN                            :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 3044 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-23-CR-0002640-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 CLEO RUFFIN JR.                        :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 3045 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-23-CR-0000027-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                      FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2023

     Cleo Ruffin, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence of six to twenty-

three months of imprisonment, followed by four years of probation, imposed

after he pled guilty to failure to comply with sex offender registration

requirements and disorderly conduct.    Appellant’s counsel, Wana Saadzoi,

Esquire, has filed an application to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders
J-S36013-23

v. California, 386 U.S. 748 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We deny counsel’s petition and order new briefing.

       On May 5, 2021, Officer Kenneth Collins of the Darby Borough Police

Department received a fax from the Pennsylvania State Police informing him

that Appellant had missed the prescribed check-in window required for

Megan’s Law offenders.1 Officer Collins responded to Appellant’s residence

and arrested him for failing to comply with the reporting requirements and for

disorderly conduct based on an outstanding warrant.

       Appellant pled guilty in both of the above-captioned cases and was

sentenced as referenced above. He filed no post-sentence motions. While

still represented by counsel, Appellant filed timely pro se notices of appeal in

both cases. The trial court held a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).               At the hearing, the court allowed plea

counsel to withdraw and granted Appellant’s request to be represented by

counsel on appeal. Thereafter, the court appointed Attorney Saadzoi. Both

Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. We consolidated

the cases sua sponte.

       As noted, Appellant’s counsel filed both an Anders brief and a petition

to withdraw as counsel. The following legal principles guide our review:

              Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders
       must    file a petition averring that, after a conscientious
____________________________________________

1 Appellant is subject to lifetime sex offender registration due to his convictions

for rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse committed in 1997.

                                           -2-
J-S36013-23

      examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly
      frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth
      issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any
      other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation
      thereof. . . .

             Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders
      petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the
      right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional
      points worthy of this Court’s attention.

             If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical
      requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to
      withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g.,
      directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an
      advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). By contrast, if counsel’s
      petition and brief satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our own
      review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa.Super. 2007)

(citations omitted).    The High Court further detailed counsel’s duties as

follows:

      [I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s
      petition to withdraw, counsel 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, supra at 361.

      Our examination of counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief

reveals    that   counsel   has   substantially   complied   with   the   technical

                                       -3-
J-S36013-23

requirements set forth above.2 As required by Santiago, counsel provided a

summary of the case history, referred to an issue that arguably supports the

appeal, stated her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, and cited case law

supporting that conclusion. See Anders brief at 6-22.

       The only issue of arguable merit identified by counsel was that Appellant

received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty pleas.

Specifically, Appellant believes his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to

file a post-sentence motion to withdraw both of his guilty pleas, which

Appellant alleges were not given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. As

counsel correctly observes, our Supreme Court has articulated that, absent

specific circumstances not applicable here, claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel should not be raised on direct appeal but should rather be deferred to

collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 577 (Pa.

2013); Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.3d 726, 735 (Pa. 2002). Therefore,

raising such a claim in this appeal would be frivolous. See Commonwealth

v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 889 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“Appellant’s ineffectiveness

claims are frivolous as raised on direct appeal”). Thus, we proceed “‘to make

a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to

decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.’” Commonwealth v.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant did not file a response to counsel’s petition.

                                           -4-
J-S36013-23

Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1249 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting Santiago, supra

at 354 n.5).

      Our independent review of the certified record reveals a potential issue

of arguable merit, i.e., that Appellant pled guilty to an inoperative criminal

offense.   Appellant was charged with failure to comply with registration

requirements because he did not register with the Pennsylvania State Police

as a sexual offender pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(1).               The

Commonwealth eventually dismissed that charge in exchange for Appellant

pleading guilty to a different crime, failure to comply with registration of

sexual offenders requirements, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915(a)(1). That

provision was a part of Megan’s Law III, which had been rendered inoperative

and replaced by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”)

since December 20, 2012.      Moreover, in 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court handed down its decision in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603,

615 (Pa. 2013), where it abrogated Megan’s Law III as violating the

Pennsylvania Constitution’s single subject rule.

      In Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 173 A.3d 723, 728 (Pa. 2017),

the appellant was convicted of violating § 4915 after it had been ruled

unconstitutional by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that a defendant

cannot be convicted of violating § 4915 because that section was based upon

the invalidated Megan’s Law III. Id. Our Supreme Court reasoned that “an

offense created by an unconstitutional law is not a crime, and [a] conviction

                                     -5-
J-S36013-23

under it is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” Id.

(cleaned up) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). More recently,

in Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 232 A.3d 609, 619 (Pa. 2020) (cleaned up),

the High Court held that “Appellant’s conviction and sentence cannot stand .

. . because his conviction was likewise based on [§] 4915, which . . . must be

regarded as void from the time of its enactment.” In sum, our Supreme Court

held that § 4915 was void and that a conviction for failing to satisfy the

reporting    requirements      pursuant        to   that   provision   could   not   stand.

Accordingly, since Appellant pled guilty to an offense under § 4915, it appears

that he has a potentially non-frivolous issue that counsel neglected to examine

in the Anders brief.

       Thus, we deny Attorney Saadzoi’s application to withdraw and instruct

counsel to, within thirty days, file either (1) an advocate’s brief arguing that

Appellant’s sentence is illegal and should be vacated, or (2) another

application to withdraw and a new Anders brief explaining why an appeal

challenging the legality of Appellant’s sentence would be wholly frivolous.3

The Commonwealth shall have thirty days thereafter to file a response.

       Application of Wana Saadzoi, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel is denied.

Panel jurisdiction is retained.

____________________________________________

3 Counsel should further address the impact of the validity of Appellant’s guilty

plea to an invalid criminal statute.

                                           -6-