Court Opinion

ID: 9396137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 16:14:49.528762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.288872
License: Public Domain

J-S07022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 CHRISTOPHER BETANCOURTH                 :
                                         :
                     Appellant           :   No. 1997 EDA 2022

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 13, 2017,
              in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0004143-2016,
            CP-39-CR-0004144-2016, CP-39-CR-0004145-2016,
                         CP-39-CR-0004272-2016.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                          FILED MAY 19, 2023

      Christopher Betancourth appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after he pled guilty to several offenses. Additionally, Betancourth’s

counsel asked to withdraw representation and filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon review, we deny counsel’s petition

with instructions.

      On July 26, 2017, Betancourth plead guilty in four separate cases to

person not to possess a firearm, robbery (two cases), and receiving stolen

property. The trial court sentenced Betancourth to an aggregate term of 6 1/2

to 14 years’ incarceration. Betancourth did not file a post-sentence motion or

an appeal.
J-S07022-23

        On July 12, 2018, Betancourth filed a Post Conviction Relief Act1 petition.

The court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

pursuant to a Turner/Finley letter, which was granted. Thereafter, the PCRA

court held a hearing on the merits and denied the PCRA petition on November

21, 2018.

        On December 7, 2018, Betancourth filed a post-sentence motion. In

part, he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. On December 11, 2018, the trial

court denied this motion. That same day, Betancourth appealed the court’s

order denying him relief under the PCRA.

        On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded because the court held an

evidentiary hearing on the merits, and Betancourth was entitled to have

counsel represent him at the PCRA hearing or be colloquized on the record to

waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se.

        Upon remand, counsel was appointed, an amended petition was filed,

and a second evidentiary hearing was held. The court granted PCRA relief and

reinstated Betancourth’s direct appeal rights.

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -2-
J-S07022-23

       Betancourth filed this timely appeal.2 Counsel filed an Anders brief with

this Court but did not file a separate petition to withdraw. Betancourth did

not retain independent counsel or file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

       When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the

merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to

withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super.

2010). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous and

wishes to withdraw from representation, counsel must do the following:

       (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
____________________________________________

2 The notice of appeal lists all four trial court docket numbers, in contravention
of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that an
appellant is required to file separate notices of appeal when a single order
resolves issues arising on more than one trial court docket). However, the
PCRA court’s July 1, 2022, order advised that “[Betancourth] is granted leave
to file an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order.” (emphasis added). In Commonwealth v.
Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019), this Court declined to quash an
appeal where the trial court’s order dismissed two PCRA petitions, and the trial
court, in advising appellant of his rights, referred to a singular notice of appeal.
Moreover, in Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 354 (Pa. Super.
2020) (en banc), this Court held that “we may overlook the requirements of
Walker where [. . .] a breakdown occurs in the court system, and a defendant
is misinformed or misled regarding his appellate rights.” Larkin, 235 A.3d at
354. We therefore decline to quash Betancourth’s appeal for this procedural
defect.

                                           -3-
J-S07022-23

      counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points [the
      defendant] deems worthy of this Court's attention.

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

(citation omitted).   In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.

2009), our Supreme Court addressed the second requirement of Anders, i.e.,

the contents of an Anders brief, and required that the brief:

      (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.          Once counsel has satisfied the Anders

requirements, it is then this Court’s responsibility “to 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).

      Instantly, although counsel filed an Anders brief, he did not file a

separate petition to withdraw representation with this Court. Instead, counsel

included his petition to withdraw as a document within his brief. Nevertheless,

we may treat this as a request to withdraw.            See Commonwealth v.

Fischetti, 669 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1995). (explaining “the more desirable

                                      -4-
J-S07022-23

practice would be to submit a separate withdrawal request to the court”).

Therein, counsel indicated that he “determined that there are no meritorious

appellate issues.”3 Further, the Anders brief substantially comports with the

requirements set forth by our Supreme Court in Santiago.

       Finally, although counsel included a copy of the letter that he sent to

Betancourth stating counsel’s intention to seek permission to withdraw and

advising Betancourth of his right to proceed pro se or retain new counsel, the

letter does not inform Betancourth that he may raise additional points.

Additionally, the certificate of service attached to the Anders brief does not

indicate that it was sent to Betancourth but instead lists another individual’s

name.      And, although the Anders brief indicates that it was sent to

Betancourth and that it was to be enclosed with the letter, the letter does not

indicate that there were any enclosures.         Thus, we cannot be sure that

Betancourth was actually provided with a copy of the brief and petition to

withdraw as required.

        Accordingly, as counsel has not complied with the procedural

requirements for withdrawing from representation, we are compelled to deny

counsel’s request to withdraw and remand this matter with instructions to

____________________________________________

3 We remind counsel to state in his petition that, “after a conscientious
examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly
frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super.
2007) (emphasis added).

                                           -5-
J-S07022-23

ensure Betancourth’s constitutional rights are afforded to him. Counsel shall

either comply with Anders or file an advocate’s brief on Betancourth’s behalf

within 30 days of this decision.

      Petition to withdraw denied. Jurisdiction retained.

                                    -6-