Court Opinion

ID: 9928807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:10:51.926262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:43.826762
License: Public Domain

J-S42008-23

                                2024 PA Super 16

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 PATRICK MICHAEL FALCEY, JR.              :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1541 EDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 18, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0005656-2020

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

OPINION BY BOWES, J.:                              FILED JANUARY 29, 2024

      Patrick Michael Falcey, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence of two

and one-half to five years of incarceration imposed after the trial court found

him in violation of his probation. Appellant’s counsel, Stuart Wilder, Esquire

has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and brief pursuant to Anders v.

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

A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      Appellant pled guilty in 2021 to terroristic threats, simple assault, and

possessing instruments of crime following an incident with his girlfriend and

grandparents. The court imposed time served to two-years-less-one-day of

imprisonment, followed by five years of probation.      After his release from

incarceration, Appellant failed to comply with the terms of his supervision, and
J-S42008-23

following a Gagnon II hearing, the trial court determined that he violated

probation and imposed the above-referenced sentence. This timely appeal

ensued. The trial court filed a concise statement order, and Attorney Wilder

submitted a statement of intent to withdraw pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4).

Thereafter, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

      Counsel in this Court filed both an Anders brief and a petition to

withdraw as counsel. The following legal principles apply to our consideration

of these filings:

             Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders
      must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious
      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). Our Supreme Court has further detailed counsel’s duties

as follows:

                                      -2-
J-S42008-23

       [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.

       Based upon our examination of counsel’s petition to withdraw and

Anders brief, we conclude that he has not complied with the requirements

set forth above. Counsel provided an appropriate summary of the facts and

procedural history. See Anders brief at 6-12. Further, he supplied the brief

to Appellant and advised him of his right to hire new counsel or proceed pro

se in this Court.1     However, counsel’s Anders brief is defective because it

simultaneously contends that Appellant’s appeal is wholly frivolous and that

the lower court abused its discretion in sentencing Appellant to the

abovementioned term. See id. at 13.

       In this vein, counsel devotes a section of the Anders brief to explaining

that Appellant’s claims are frivolous and that he should be permitted to

withdraw. See id. at 14-20. Counsel opines that “there are no non-frivolous

grounds that can be advanced in support of [A]ppellant’s appeal.” Id. at 20.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a pro se response to Attorney Wilder’s letter, wherein
Appellant alleged that the Commonwealth and the probation officer who
testified at the hearing concerning the revocation of Appellant’s probation
offered false testimony. See Appellant’s Response to Anders brief, 9/20/23,
at 1-3.

                                           -3-
J-S42008-23

Attorney Wilder also states that Appellant’s sentence was “well within the [trial

court’s] discretion.” Id.

      However, counsel then argues that, in sentencing Appellant, the court

did not give sufficient weight to a purported mitigating factor, i.e., Appellant’s

rehabilitative needs. Id. at 25. Attorney Wilder contends that “[t]he court’s

explanation for its sentence insufficiently acknowledged the testimony of

[A]ppellant and his father that augured a law-abiding future for the

[A]ppellant once he received adequate treatment.” Id. Counsel asserts that

because the judgement of sentence was not necessary to vindicate the

authority of the court, it should be vacated as excessive, and the matter

remanded to the trial court. Id.

      As this Court thoroughly discussed in Commonwealth v. Morrison,

173 A.3d 286 (Pa.Super. 2017), it is improper for counsel to file a hybrid

advocate’s/no-merit brief. We explained that the Anders procedure “applies

only to appeals that are wholly frivolous—that is, cases where counsel has

determined that there are no arguments that counsel may advance because

all issues lack basis in law and/or fact.” Id. at 291 (emphases in original).

Attorney Wilder briefly articulated what he believed to be an issue of arguable

merit, namely that the sentence was not necessary to vindicate the court’s

authority and was excessive.       Hence, the hybrid analysis outlined in the

Anders brief is defective, and an advocate’s brief is required.

                                      -4-
J-S42008-23

      However, because counsel filed a 1925(c)(4) statement of intent to

withdraw in lieu of a Rule 1925(b) statement, the trial court never had an

opportunity to address this potentially meritorious issue.      Accordingly, we

remand the matter for the trial court to file a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing

the merits of Appellant’s claim. See Pa.R.A.P 1925(c)(4) (stating that where

counsel files an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, “[i]f the appellate court

believes there are arguably meritorious issues for review, those issues will not

be waived; instead, the appellate court shall remand for the filing and service

of a Statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), a supplemental opinion

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), or both”); see also Commonwealth v.

Stroud, 298 A.3d 1152, 1158 (Pa.Super. 2023).

      Hence, we deny Attorney Wilder’s petition to withdraw and instruct the

trial court to file an opinion addressing Appellant’s sentencing claim within

thirty days of the date of this opinion. The Prothonotary of this Court shall

subsequently establish a new schedule for briefing.

      Finally, while Attorney Wilder and the Commonwealth both cite the

transcript from Appellant’s November 5, 2021 guilty plea and sentencing

hearing, it is not included in the certified record. As it is Appellant’s burden

to ensure that the certified record is complete, we direct counsel to

supplement the certified record with this transcript pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1926(b). Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa.Super. 2013)

(stating it is an appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the certified record

                                      -5-
J-S42008-23

includes “all of the materials necessary for the reviewing court to perform its

duty”).

      Petition of Stuart Wilder, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel is denied.

Counsel shall obtain the missing transcript and secure its inclusion in a

supplemental certified record.   Matter remanded with instructions.      Panel

jurisdiction retained.

                                     -6-