Court Opinion

ID: 9383529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:11:11.791904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.930273
License: Public Domain

J-S42037-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS A/K/A          :
 FREDERICK DOUGLAS COLLINS           :
                                     :   No. 588 WDA 2022
                   Appellant         :

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0012275-2015

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS A/K/A          :
 FREDERICK DOUGLAS COLLINS           :
                                     :   No. 589 WDA 2022
                   Appellant         :

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013685-2015

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
                                     :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS                :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :   No. 590 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013238-2015
J-S42037-22

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS                 :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 591 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013236-2015

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS                 :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 592 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013234-2015

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 FREDERICK D. COLLINS                 :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 593 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013218-2015

                                -2-
J-S42037-22

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                             FILED: MARCH 30, 2023

        Frederick D. Collins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following resentencing whereupon he received an aggregate incarceration

term of sixteen to thirty-two years for aggravated assault, prohibited

possession of a firearm, and intimidation of a witness/victim.1 Collins’s counsel

has concurrently filed a petition to withdraw from representation and, too, has

filed a corresponding brief pursuant to Anders v. California. See 386 U.S.

783 (1967). After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of

sentence and further grant counsel's petition to withdraw.

        The parties are well aware of the facts underpinning Collins’s

convictions. However, we replicate the factual summary as written by this

Court in Collins’s original direct appeal:

        [Collins] was charged with a series of offenses arising from events
        between July and October of 2015, when he was 34½ years old.
        On October 25, 2016, [Collins] pleaded nolo contendere to
        multiple charges at the above caption numbers. The trial court
        identified the charges and informed [Collins] of the maximum
        sentence for each offense, and [Collins] acknowledged that he
        understood the charges. The Commonwealth summarized the
        relevant facts as follows:

           [H]ad we proceeded to trial [at CP-02-CR-0013234-2015],
           we would have called officers from the City of McKeesport
           Police Department, [and] they would have testified that on
           September 6th of 2015 at about 4:22 p.m., they were
____________________________________________

   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1); and 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4952(a)(3), respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S42037-22

       notified by Shona Green that a male had pointed a gun at
       her. Shona’s neighbor, Michelle Simpson, had asked Shona
       to go over to Michelle’s house to feed her dog. When Shona
       Green went to the house, the door swung open and [Collins]
       was standing there pointing a silver pistol at her and he said
       to her: What the fuck are you doing at my house? I will
       fucking shoot you. So Shona then ran away.

       Six minutes later . . . at [CP-02-CR-0013236-2015], West
       Mifflin police received a dispatch about the prior incident[;
       they received a report from] Michelle Simpson who stated
       that [Collins] was on his way to Monview Heights to kill her
       and everyone else. The officers arrived on scene, observed
       a silver minivan exiting the front gate and they pursued the
       van, initiated a traffic stop, and the officer asked who the
       passenger was and he stated his name was Louis Ellis, [and]
       they later identified him as [Collins]. They identified the
       driver as Daryl Waite who apparently was a jitney driver and
       Waite told them that [Collins] had entered the vehicle with
       a firearm, he pulled the firearm and said take me to
       Monview. During the drive[,] [Collins] stated he was going
       to kill her, and Waite said that . . . there was a firearm in
       the glove compartment which the officer retrieved. There
       are two firearms charges [for] which we would have
       provided the certificate of non-licensure. Then at the lab,
       the firearm was identified as a .25–caliber Raven Arms pistol
       912566, good operation, no barrel length in the report, but
       the officer would testify it was less than 16 inches. As to the
       persons not to possess, we would have introduced a certified
       conviction for robbery of a motor vehicle and aggravated
       assault, November 19th of 2001, at CC 1999-14932.

                                   ***

       In [CP-02-CR-0013218-2015], had this matter proceeded to
       trial, the Commonwealth would have called witnesses from
       McKeesport City Police Department, as well as the victim in
       this matter, Michelle Simpson. The testimony would have
       been heard that on or about July 16, 2015, in Allegheny
       County, that [Collins] threatened the victim as well as her
       juvenile daughter, who was six years old at the time, that
       he would kill Michelle Simpson as well as physically assault
       her six-year-old daughter. [Collins] also physically
       assaulted the victim Michelle Simpson by punching her in

                                    -4-
J-S42037-22

       the back of the head.

       Moving on to . . . [CP-02-CR-0013685-2015], had this
       matter proceeded to trial, the Commonwealth would have
       called officers from the West Mifflin Borough Police
       Department, namely Officer Joseph Hoffman, Officer Robert
       Fedor and Officer Michael Pintigh . . . Further the
       Commonwealth would have called a witness who was the
       victim, Michelle Simpson, as well as Magisterial District
       Judge Richard Olasz. The testimony would have been heard
       that on or about October 1, 2015, in the County of Allegheny
       that a preliminary hearing was being held where [Collins]
       was Mr. Collins and the victim was Michelle Simpson, during
       the course of that preliminary hearing, Mr. Collins became
       disorderly and was removed from the hearing. On the way
       out of the hearing, he threatened the victim Michelle
       Simpson and threatened to kill her, put his hand in the
       shape of a gun. He further threatened to kill Officer Joseph
       Hoffman and Officer Robert Fedor. Later, MDJ Olasz was
       leaving the hearing. As he walked by the police car where
       [Collins] was being held, [Collins] threatened Judge Olasz
       and said that he would kill him as well. At this time he was
       currently at preliminary hearing facing charges of felonies of
       a first degree for a prior assault on Michelle Simpson. While
       in the police car [Collins] was handcuffed, however, he was
       able to remove his hands from a handcuff. During that time
       Officer Joseph Hoffman and Officer Robert Fedor were
       present. [Collins] physically resisted their arrest resulting in
       them deploying their Tasers at him. Further, while [Collins]
       was in the police car he did defecate and damage the police
       car with the feces.

       Moving on to [CP-02-CR-0013238-2015,] had this matter
       proceeded to trial, the Commonwealth would have called
       witnesses from the City of McKeesport Police Department,
       as well as the victim in this matter, Michelle Simpson. Had
       this matter proceeded to trial, the testimony would have
       been heard that on or about September 5, 2015, that
       [Collins] physically assaulted Michelle Simpson with a
       firearm, striking her in the face with it. Further, he
       threatened both her and her 7-year-old daughter who was
       asleep on the couch with her with the firearm, threatening
       to kill both of them.

                                    -5-
J-S42037-22

                                          ***

          [H]ad [CP-02-CR-0013275-2015] proceeded to trial on . . .
          three . . . counts of terroristic threats, the Commonwealth
          would have called officers from the West Mifflin Borough
          Police Department, as well as the victim in this matter,
          Michelle Simpson, as well as Jason Steward. Here testimony
          would have been heard that on or about September 6, 2015,
          that [Collins] had threatened the three victims, to kill all of
          them. Mr. Steward was currently in a relationship with Ms.
          Simpson, and Ms. Simpson’s daughter was present when
          [Collins] threatened to kill all of them.

       The trial court accepted [Collins’s] nolo contendere plea as
       knowing, voluntary and intelligent, adding that [Collins] could
       receive a maximum of 203 years’ imprisonment.

Commonwealth v. Collins, No. 1265 WDA 2017, at 2-4 (Pa. Super., filed

July 16, 2018) (unpublished memorandum) (record citations omitted).

       Collins orally attempted to withdraw from the nolo contendere plea prior

to sentencing. However, the sentencing court denied this attempt, which it

construed as a motion, and sentenced him to an aggregate twenty-three-and-

one-half to forty-seven years of incarceration.2 This Court affirmed his

judgment of sentence on appeal, and Collins’s subsequent petition for

____________________________________________

2 Both this Court in the prior memorandum and the lower court in the present
matter refer to Collins’s original aggregate sentence as spanning twenty-five
to fifty years. However, the Anders brief and Commonwealth brief both
indicate that the original aggregate sentence was twenty-three-and-one-half
to forty-seven years of incarceration. The latter appears to be the correct
aggregation: “Appellant’s [Post Conviction Relief Act] Petition, as well as the
sentencing transcript in this case reflect that Judge McDaniel imposed a
sentence of 4 to 8 years of incarceration[;] however, the Sentencing Order
and a Sentence Status Summary obtained from the Department of Corrections
indicate that the sentence imposed at CP-02-CR0012275-2015, Count 4, was
actually 2 ½ to 5 years of incarceration.” Commonwealth’s Brief, at 5 n.1.

                                           -6-
J-S42037-22

allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court was denied.

       In 2019, Collins filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post Conviction

Relief Act. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Counsel thereafter filed an

amended petition premised on a claim of double jeopardy, principally

contending that “two sentences imposed for possession of a firearm during [a

charged] incident … constituted a single continuing offense.” Trial Court

Opinion, 9/6/22, at 2. Ultimately, Collins was granted relief and was

resentenced.3

       Following resentencing, Collins filed a post-sentence motion, which was

denied. Collins filed a timely notice of appeal, and the relevant parties have

complied with their respective obligations under Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925.

       On appeal, Collins claims that the court abused its discretion in imposing

a new sentence that was not individualized, instead opting to, in essence,

merely reimpose his original sentence. See Anders Brief, at 8. As indicated,

supra, Collins’s counsel simultaneously has filed a petition to withdraw from

representation and an Anders brief. We note that Collins has not filed a pro

se response to this brief, and the record does not demonstrate that any

____________________________________________

3 Specifically, Collins was sentenced to two consecutive incarceration terms of
five to ten years for prohibited possession of a firearm and aggravated assault
and a consecutive six-to-twelve-year term for witness/victim intimidation. The
other counts against him resulted in a determination of guilty without further
penalty.

                                           -7-
J-S42037-22

independent counsel has filed a brief on his behalf.

      Notwithstanding the issue raised in the Anders brief, counsel’s petition

to withdraw must be considered prior to any substantive analysis of that issue.

See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010). An

Anders brief suggests that counsel believes an appeal is frivolous. Linked to

that belief is counsel's desire to withdraw from representation, which requires

counsel to:

      (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after
      making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
      determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring
      to any issues that might arguably support the appeal, but which
      does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the
      brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new
      counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points [counsel]
      deems worthy of this Court's attention.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 906 A.2d 1225, 1227 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citation omitted). As developed in Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d

349 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court illuminated the necessary components of

an Anders brief, which require that counsel:

      (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.

                                     -8-
J-S42037-22

Id., at 361. If counsel complies with Anders, this Court must then “conduct

a simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be

arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or

misstated.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc).

      After reviewing counsel's submissions, we find there has been

satisfactory compliance with Anders. First, the petition to withdraw indicates

that counsel ”reviewed the record” and, in so doing, determined that “in

[counsel’s] professional opinion, … [Collins] is not entitled to relief as the

claim[] asserted on appeal is[] wholly frivolous[.]” Application for Leave to

Withdraw as Counsel, ¶¶ 1-2. Second, counsel's brief substantially conforms

to the four requirements outlined in Santiago, including a well-developed

summary of this matter’s facts and procedural history. Third, counsel has

included a copy of the letter that he sent to Collins, which demonstrates

counsel's unequivocal intention to withdraw from representation and, too,

apprises Collins of his right to either seek new counsel or proceed pro se to

file additional claims. Resultantly, because the Anders requirements have

been met, we proceed to review the “frivolous” claim asserted on Collins’s

behalf. Then, we conduct an independent review to ascertain whether Collins’s

appeal is, in fact, wholly unmeritorious.

      The Anders brief solely challenges the discretionary aspects of Collins’s

sentence. A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence does not

                                     -9-
J-S42037-22

automatically ensure review on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d

359, 363 (Pa. Super. 2013). Prior to considering the merits of such a claim,

we are required to consider:

      (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [Collins] preserved
      his issue; (3) whether [Collins’s] brief includes a concise
      statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
      respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence[, see Pa.R.A.P.
      2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a
      substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the
      sentencing code.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 329–30 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(citation omitted).

      Collins filed a timely appeal, preserved the discretionary aspects issue

via post-sentence motion, and the Anders brief includes a statement pursuant

to Appellate Rule 2119(f). See Anders Brief, at 18. Accordingly, we must

consider whether Collins has posed a substantial question.

      Although terse, the Anders brief asserts that a substantial question

exists where one avers that, upon resentencing, the court mechanically

reimposed    the   same   aggregate    sentencing   without   consideration   of

individualized sentencing factors. See id. Such a contention has been found

to raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Morgan, 258 A.3d

1147, 1157 (Pa. Super. 2021) (noting that a substantial question exists where

the lower court failed to consider the factors enumerated in the sentencing

code in the context of the court not “starting afresh” upon resentencing);

Commonwealth v. Serrano, 150 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa. Super. 2016) (finding,

                                      - 10 -
J-S42037-22

implicitly, there to be a substantial question predicated on, inter alia, the lack

of consideration of that defendant’s individualized needs prior to that specific

resentencing juncture). Therefore, we proceed to a substantive review of

Collins’s claim.

      Fundamentally, the Anders brief illuminates the issue of whether the

court, upon resentencing, rotely imposed a sentence materially identical to

the last aggregate sentence without any contemporary consideration of, inter

alia, Collins’s individual characteristics and circumstances. For challenges to

the discretionary aspects of a sentence, we employ a well-settled set of

precepts:

      Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
      absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
      sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
      judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
      arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted). Moreover, where the trial court sentenced within the guidelines,

such as in the present matter, we may only vacate the sentence if it is “clearly

unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2).

      A sentencing court is to consider the protection of the public, the gravity

of the offense as it relates to the impact on the victim and the community,

and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

On appeal, this Court is required to, inter alia, glean the nature and

                                     - 11 -
J-S42037-22

circumstances of the offenses and history and characteristics of the defendant

as well as take note of the opportunities that the sentencing court had to

observe the defendant, specifically in contemplation of it having reviewed a

pre-sentence investigation. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).

       The Anders brief notes that Collins’s individual sentences

       fall within the statutory maximum for the respective offenses and
       there is no illegality in the sentence–[Collins] was found ineligible
       for RRRI and that finding is supported by the record[.] [H]e was
       given credit for all time served regarding the cases at which a
       sentence of incarceration was imposed, and there was no
       mandatory minimum sentence provision imposed. As to the length
       of the sentence imposed, the [c]ourt, in the prior appeal in this
       matter, held the aggregate sentence of 23.5 to 47 years [of]
       incarceration was not an abuse of discretion.

Anders Brief, at 20-21 (record citation omitted).

       In its opinion, the court distinguished the above-referenced Serrano

case with the course of action it took in crafting Collins’s new sentence. In

Serrano, which featured resentencing following the finding of an illegal

sentencing scheme,4 the judge, in imposing an identical sentence, explicitly

indicated on record that, in imposing this new sentence, he was not making

an independent judgment on that defendant’s case. See 150 A.3d at 474.

Based on this admission, it was an abuse of discretion to simply “effectuate

the intent of the prior sentencing judge.” Id., at 475 (acknowledging that the

sentencing court had an updated pre-sentence investigation report and that

____________________________________________

4The sentence was found to be in violation of Alleyne v. United States. See
570 U.S. 99 (2013).

                                          - 12 -
J-S42037-22

the defendant was given the opportunity to present evidence on his own

behalf, but that this Court was unable to “ignore the court’s outright admission

that it did not believe its role was to take an independent look at the case[]”)

(record citation omitted).

      Here, however, Collins provided to the court a memorandum in aid of

sentencing, inclusive of an appendix, which provided “detailed information

regarding [Collins’s] criminal history and conduct since the original sentencing

which was presented in lieu of procuring an updated pre-sentence report.”

Trial Court Opinion, 9/6/22, at 9-10 (internal quotation marks and brackets

omitted). Whereas Collins’s original aggregate sentence was twenty-three-

and-one-half to forty-seven years of incarceration, his new aggregate

sentence was substantially reduced to sixteen to thirty-two years. The court

also noted that it obtained “the benefit of the information and documents

regarding [Collins’s] criminal history and conduct” and that Collins “was given

the opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing[.]” Id., at 10; see

Resentencing Hearing, 5/4/22, at 4 (establishing that Collins made a

statement). The court “also heard the argument of counsel regarding an

appropriate sentence and, in fact, imposed the exact sentence requested by

counsel[.]” Id.

      Although the resentencing transcript is rather light on attendant

explanation as to why the court reimposed the three individual sentences in

the manner that it did, to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, there must be

                                     - 13 -
J-S42037-22

some indicia that this new sentence is “either illegal or contrary to the general

scheme of the Sentencing Guidelines, not how the sentence at hand may

appear in comparison to an extinguished sentence.” Commonwealth v.

Bailey, 818 A.2d 543, 545 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis in

original). Furthermore, the Anders brief acknowledges that “[t]here is no

issue here about whether the [c]ourt had a pre-sentence report and

information on subsequent events. The [c]ourt provided the parties with

access to the [non-updated] pre-sentence report over a week prior to

re[]sentencing[.]” Anders Brief, at 21-22. Because the existence of a pre-

sentence investigation report creates a presumption that the court was “aware

of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed

those     considerations   along    with      mitigating   statutory   factors[,]”

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted), there is no clear basis, unlike Serrano,

to find that presumption defeated. As such, we conclude that the court did not

abuse its discretion in resentencing Collins to an aggregate incarceration term

of sixteen to thirty-two years or, more particularly, at any of the sentence’s

discrete components, which all fell within the standard ranges of their

respective sentencing guidelines.

        Pursuant to Anders, we have additionally reviewed the record

independently to ascertain the existence of other non-frivolous issues. This

review has uncovered nothing legally viable for Collins to have pursued on

                                     - 14 -
J-S42037-22

appeal.

     As we are unable to find any non-frivolous issues and further see no

merit to the sole issue counsel has advanced, we grant counsel's petition to

withdraw and affirm Collins’s judgment of sentence.

     Petition to withdraw from representation granted. Judgment of sentence

affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/30/2023

                                   - 15 -