Court Opinion

ID: 9892615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:15:20.895363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:01.604706
License: Public Domain

J-S27019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
              v.                            :
                                            :
                                            :
 ANDREW TERRY INGRAM                        :
                                            :
                     Appellant              :   No. 505 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 14, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-01-CR-0001106-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                            FILED OCTOBER 24, 2023

      Andrew Terry Ingram appeals from the judgment of sentence of

seventy-two hours to six months of incarceration imposed following his

conviction of three counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”) and one count

of failing to drive on the right side of the roadway. Counsel, Scott A. Harper,

Esquire, has filed an application to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).      We deny counsel’s petition and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

      This case stems from a traffic stop conducted by Pennsylvania State

Police (“PSP”) Trooper Alexander Loder on June 13, 2022. Trooper Loder was

driving behind Appellant when Trooper Loder observed “Appellant’s front and

rear driver’s side tires cross the double yellow centerline. Appellant continued

to travel with a portion of his vehicle over the centerline for [sixteen] seconds.”
J-S27019-23

Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/23, at 2. Trooper Loder initiated a traffic stop and

Appellant complied by pulling over. The trooper approached Appellant and,

upon speaking with him, smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana and noticed

that Appellant had bloodshot eyes.      Appellant stated that he had smoked

marijuana twenty to thirty minutes before the stop. Trooper Loder conducted

field sobriety tests and ultimately concluded that Appellant was under the

influence of marijuana and could not safely drive. Appellant was arrested and

subsequently consented to a blood draw, which revealed the presence of

marijuana.

      On January 6, 2023, Appellant proceeded to a combined suppression

hearing and bench trial. The trial court denied Appellant’s suppression motion,

found him guilty as indicated above, and sentenced him. This timely appeal

followed. The trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement, but none was filed.          The court issued a statement

suggesting the appeal be dismissed as a result.        See Trial Court Opinion,

3/22/23. Over one month later, counsel filed an untimely concise statement

on Appellant’s behalf, raising a single issue challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence. Counsel then filed in this Court an Anders brief and petition to

withdraw, presenting the same sufficiency challenge as the only issue

arguably supporting an appeal. See Anders brief at 6.

      Given this procedural posture, and the fact that the certified record was

missing material items, we denied counsel’s petition, remanded for counsel to

ensure inclusion within the certified record of all necessary materials, and

                                      -2-
J-S27019-23

directed the trial court to file a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response to the

untimely Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Ingram, 2023

WL 5447699 (Pa.Super. August 23, 2023) (non-precedential decision).

      While the trial court has issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion, counsel has not

complied with our directive to supplement the record with the pertinent video

evidence. Rather than await counsel’s compliance, we deem it more prudent

to address counsel’s Anders brief at this time. Counsel seeking to withdraw

pursuant to Anders must:

      (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
      making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
      determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) furnish a copy
      of the brief to the appellant; and (3) advise the appellant that he
      or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
      arguments that the appellant deems worthy of the court’s
      attention.

Commonwealth v. Redmond, 273 A.3d 1247, 1252 (Pa.Super. 2022)

(cleaned up). Our Supreme 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. “Substantial compliance with these requirements is

sufficient.” Commonwealth v. Prieto, 206 A.3d 529, 533 (Pa.Super. 2019)

(cleaned up). “If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical requirements

                                      -3-
J-S27019-23

of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to withdraw and remand the case

with appropriate instructions[.]” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717,

721 (Pa.Super. 2007) (cleaned up).

      Here, counsel sets forth a single issue of arguable merit: “Did the trial

court err in finding sufficient evidence to establish a violation of the Motor

Vehicle Code, based on [Appellant’s] momentary and slight crossing of the

double yellow line without impeding any other vehicle traveling on that section

of roadway at that time?” Anders brief at 12 (cleaned up). In its entirety,

counsel argues as follows:

      Undersigned Counsel has been unable to determine that this issue
      has any arguable merit on this appeal. Counsel has reached this
      conclusion upon a review of the record and relevant case law. In
      arriving at this conclusion Appellant’s counsel has kept his duty to
      advocate for his client forefront in his mind. However, when
      counsel considers the limitations of the court’s scope and standard
      of review for a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,
      counsel is ethically constrained to inform this Honorable Court that
      he can find no good faith basis for asserting this particular issue
      on appeal. In arriving at this conclusion, counsel has reviewed
      and utilized the standard set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
      Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims
      and contentions) and Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal).

      If this Honorable Court, based on a review of the record, finds that
      the Appellant’s contentions are of merit, given the scope and
      standard of review, it is respectfully requested that appropriate
      relief be granted.

Id. at 12-13 (cleaned up).

      Counsel sets forth the scope and standard of review of a sufficiency

claim earlier in the brief. See id. at 4-5. Critically, however, counsel does

not present any case law or application of the facts of record to the relevant

                                     -4-
J-S27019-23

case law within the brief. Moreover, as detailed by the trial court, Appellant’s

argument, while using the language of sufficiency, appears really to be a claim

challenging the court’s denial of his suppression motion.        See Trial Court

Opinion, 8/29/23, at 4 n.3 (“The concise statement mentions the sufficiency

of the evidence, which is typically a challenge to the verdict. However, the

wording of the issue mentioning the violation of the Motor Vehicle Code implies

that Appellant’s challenge is really directed at the denial of his motion to

suppress.” (cleaned up)).     Nonetheless, counsel does not discuss in the

Anders brief the merits of a suppression claim.

      Based on the foregoing, we determine counsel’s Anders brief to be

woefully inadequate. Like the trial court, we conclude it appears that counsel

is conflating sufficiency of the evidence with a challenge to the court’s decision

to deny Appellant’s motion to suppress. Moreover, counsel cites no case law

or statutes in addressing Appellant’s claim and, indeed, never explains the

substance of Appellant’s claim. Stated plainly, counsel’s compliance with the

technical requirements of Anders is too deficient to be classified as

substantial.

      Thus, we once again deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand to

the trial court for further action.      This time, however, given counsel’s

numerous failings on Appellant’s behalf and in light of his dereliction to this

Court, we direct the court to appoint new counsel for Appellant forthwith. New

counsel shall enter his or her appearance with this Court. Thereafter, Attorney

                                      -5-
J-S27019-23

Harper may praecipe to withdraw his appearance in this Court.        Finally,

Appellant’s new counsel shall ensure the inclusion of the video evidence and

any other necessary materials within thirty days of appointment.       Then,

following review of the entire record, new counsel shall file either an

advocate’s brief or a petition to withdraw and Anders brief that fully comply

with the requirements detailed above within sixty days of appointment. The

Commonwealth may file a brief in response thirty days thereafter.

      Petition to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel

jurisdiction retained.

                                    -6-