Court Opinion

ID: 9651138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:08:50.297796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:28.624707
License: Public Domain

J-S15023-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JEFFERY ERIC COULTER, II                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1508 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 28, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
               Criminal Division at No: CP-28-CR-0001816-2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                     FILED: AUGUST 23, 2023

       Appellant, Jeffrey Eric Coulter, II, appeals from the September 28, 2022

judgment of sentence imposing 9 to 23 months of incarceration for

endangering the welfare of children (“EWOC”) and a concurrent1 60 months

of probation for simple assault.         Counsel has filed a brief and petition to

withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).                 We affirm the

judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

       On September 30, 2016, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with one

count of simple assault and one count of EWOC for beating his three-year-old

____________________________________________

1 Our Sentencing Code permits courts to impose probation and incarceration
“consecutively or concurrently.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(a); Commonwealth v.
Simmons, 262 A.3d 512, 523 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc).
J-S15023-23

stepdaughter with a belt. On December 6, 2021, after many continuances,

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to both charges. On June 22, 2022,

the trial court sentenced Appellant in absentia after Appellant failed to appear

despite having notice of the sentencing proceeding.        The court imposed

concurrent sentences of 60 months of probation, including 24 months of

electronic monitoring.    On September 14, 2022—while Appellant’s post-

sentence motion remained pending—Appellant’s probation officer filed a notice

of violation alleging that Appellant failed to seek and maintain employment,

and that he failed to comply with his electronic monitoring schedule. At a

September 28, 2022 violation hearing, Appellant admitted to the violations

and acknowledged he was subject to resentencing. N.T. Hearing, 9/28/22, at

2-3. At the conclusion of the September 28, 2022 hearing, the trial court

revoked Appellant’s probationary sentences and imposed a new sentence as

set forth above. By order of October 14, 2022, the trial court denied the post-

sentence motion Appellant filed in response to the June 22, 2022 sentences.

In an accompanying memorandum, the trial court explained that Appellant’s

ineffective assistance of counsel argument must await collateral review, and

that his post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea lacked merit. Appellant

filed this timely appeal on October 28, 2022.

      Before we proceed to the merits, we consider counsel’s Anders filing.

            Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under
      Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements
      established by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief must:

                                     -2-
J-S15023-23

            (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 also must provide a copy of
      the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a letter
      that advises 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 brief."

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-880 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(some citation omitted).

      The record reveals that counsel initially failed to provide this Court with

a copy of his letter to Appellant, advising Appellant of his right to proceed pro

se or with another lawyer. Counsel corrected that deficiency in response to

this Court’s order of March 1, 2023.        In other respects, counsel’s filing

complies with Anders and Santiago.             We therefore proceed to an

independent review of the record to determine whether the issues addressed

in the Anders brief are frivolous, and whether there are any non-frivolous

issues that counsel neglected. Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 165 A.3d 1002

(Pa. Super. 2017).

                                      -3-
J-S15023-23

        The Anders Brief addresses the discretionary aspects of the June 22,

2022 probation sentences and the September 28, 2022 sentence of

incarceration.   As noted above, Appellant’s post-sentence challenge to his

June 22, 2022 sentence remained pending as of the revocation hearing and

re-sentencing.      His October 28, 2022 notice of appeal challenged both

sentences.

        Regarding Appellant’s challenge to the June 22, 2022 sentence, we

consider our Supreme Court’s analysis in Commonwealth v. Foster, 214

A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2019).      There, our Supreme Court considered whether an

appeal from a revocation sentence was moot because the sentence was

subsequently revoked again. The appellant in Foster challenged the propriety

of the revocation. The Foster Court explained that “[a] case is moot when

facts that arise after the initiation of the case leave a litigant without a stake

in the outcome of the matter.” Id. at 1245. The Foster Court concluded the

issue before it was not moot because the fact of a prior revocation on the

appellant’s record could have consequences in the event of future probation

violations.   Id.    Instantly, however, Appellant wishes to challenge the

discretionary aspects of sentences he is no longer serving. Because the June

22, 2022 probationary sentences have been revoked, Appellant has no stake

in the outcome of a challenge to their discretionary aspects.       This issue is

moot.

                                      -4-
J-S15023-23

       Next, the Anders brief addresses the trial court’s September 28, 2022

revocation sentence insofar as it sentenced him to incarceration on the EWOC

charge.

             When considering an appeal from a sentence imposed
       following the revocation of probation, [o]ur review is limited to
       determining the validity of the probation revocation proceedings
       and the authority of the sentencing court to consider the same
       sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the initial
       sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b).[2] Revocation of a probation
       sentence is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial
       court and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in
       the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Giliam, 233 A.3d 863, 866–67 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(quotation marks and some citation omitted).         Section 9771(c)(3) of the

Sentencing Code permits a revocation sentence of total confinement where,

among other things, it is “essential to vindicate the authority of the court.”

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c)(3). When the trial court resentences a defendant after

____________________________________________

2   Section 9771(b) provides:

             The court may increase the conditions, impose a brief
       sanction under section 9771.1 (relating to court-imposed
       sanctions for violating probation) or revoke an order of probation
       upon proof of the violation of specified conditions of the probation.
       Upon revocation the sentencing alternatives available to the court
       shall be the same as were available at the time of initial
       sentencing, due consideration being given to the time spent
       serving the order of probation. The attorney for the
       Commonwealth may file notice at any time prior to resentencing
       of the Commonwealth's intention to proceed under an applicable
       provision of law requiring a mandatory minimum sentence.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b).

                                           -5-
J-S15023-23

revocation of probation, the court must state on the record the reasons for

the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1044 (Pa.

Super. 2014), appeal denied, 109 A.3d 678 (Pa. 2015). The imposition of

sentence upon revocation rests within the discretion of the trial court. Colon,

102 A.3d at 1043.        That challenge must be properly preserved in a post-

sentence motion. Id. at 1042-43. Appellant did not raise any post-sentence

issues on the record orally after the trial court imposed the September 28,

2022 sentences. Nor did Appellant file a timely post-sentence motion to the

September 28, 2022 sentences. As such, no challenge to the discretionary

aspects of the September 28, 2022 sentences is preserved for review. We

further observe that the maximum 23-month sentence of incarceration is

legal, as EWOC, on the facts of this case, was a first-degree misdemeanor.3

The statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a first-degree misdemeanor

is five years. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104(1).

       In any event, the trial court explained that the sentence of incarceration

vindicated its authority, as Appellant was noncompliant with several terms of

his probation terms and was uncooperative with the court throughout this

proceeding. N.T. Hearing, 9/28/22, at 17; Trial Court Opinion, 12/14/22, at

7-8.

____________________________________________

3  EWOC is codified at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304. The instant offense occurred in
2016. An amendment to § 4304 effective in 2017 provides for a one-grade
increase if the victim is under six years old.

                                           -6-
J-S15023-23

      Having conducted an independent review of the record, we discern no

potentially meritorious issues available to Appellant on direct review, including

those issues addressed in the Anders Brief. We therefore affirm the judgment

of sentence and grand counsel’s petition to withdraw.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/23/2023

                                      -7-