Court Opinion

ID: 9928823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:11:02.087427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:53.878493
License: Public Domain

J-S47038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WHITEMAN                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1838 EDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 15, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-64-CR-0000240-2022

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                        FILED JANUARY 24, 2024

       Appellant, Christopher Michael Whiteman, appeals from the judgment

of sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to DUI Controlled Substance -

Impaired Ability (“DUI”),1 Possession of a Controlled Substance, namely,

heroin,2 and Driving While Operating Privilege Suspended/Revoked.3 Herein,

he challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.        Additionally, his

counsel seeks to withdraw from representation and has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 38 (1967) and Commonwealth v.

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we grant counsel’s petition

and affirm judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2).
2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
3 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
J-S47038-23

      The relevant facts and procedural history follow. At approximately 2:00

p.m. on March 28, 2022, Sergeant Donald Thacher of the Honesdale Borough

Police Department responded to a dispatch regarding a vehicle parked on a

street in such a way that it blocked a private driveway. Affidavit of Probable

Cause, 5/17/22, at 1. At the scene, the sergeant found the vehicle located as

described, and he observed Appellant asleep in the driver’s seat with the

engine running and hazard lights flashing. Id. Once awakened, Appellant

exhibited slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an implausible explanation for

his presence at a location with which he had no apparent connection. Id.

      The sergeant obtained Appellant’s information and ran it through JNET,

which revealed that Appellant’s driver’s license was under DUI-related

suspension and that he was wanted for several AOPC warrants issued by a

local district judge. Id. A personal search of Appellant disclosed several small

glassine packets—some empty, some containing a white powdery substance—

which, in the sergeant’s experience, were often used to package heroin. Id.

      Based on the totality of the sergeant’s observations, he asked for and

received Appellant’s permission to perform a field sobriety test, which

suggested Appellant may be under the influence of a controlled substance.

Id. Appellant agreed to submit to a blood draw performed at a nearby facility,

and the results indicated the presence of fentanyl, methamphetamine, THC,

and Gabapentin. Id. at 1-2.

                                     -2-
J-S47038-23

       On September 23, 2022, Appellant was charged with the above-listed

offenses as well as with possession of drug paraphernalia4 and illegal parking

in front of a public/private driveway.5 On May 4, 2023, Appellant entered a

counseled, non-negotiated guilty plea to the charges of DUI, possession of a

controlled substance (heroin), and driving while his operating privileges were

suspended, as noted supra.

       At Appellant’s June 15, 2023, sentencing hearing, the trial court

acknowledged that it reviewed Appellant’s presentence investigation report,

and it received defense counsel’s recitation of mitigating circumstances, which

included the following:

     DEFENSE COUNSEL: Mr. Whiteman is thirty-six years of age. He’s
     married with five children. He does have his GED. He agreed with
     the official version. All of his problems come from addiction, Your
     Honor. He does have a solid work record as a laborer with the
     same company for the last six years. He’s done very well while he
     is in jail. He’s taking advantage of everything they had to offer
     there in terms of AA meetings, parenting classes, anger
     management classes and bible study, which is a great indication
     that he is trying, Your Honor. He’s had no infractions while he’s
     been in the Wayne County Jail. He has a very supportive family.,
     His mother visits him weekly. His father calls him weekly, and he
     speaks to his children every week from the jail. He was very
     cooperative with probation.

N.T., 6/15/23, at 4-5. Appellant, likewise, addressed the trial court briefly,

stating, “Yes, that, um, I know I made mistakes, and I’m trying to make

everything right now. And I’m sorry.” N.T. at 5.

____________________________________________

4 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(32).
5 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3353(a)(2)(i).

                                           -3-
J-S47038-23

     The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 months to 72

months’ incarceration, which comprised standard guideline range sentences

of not less than 12 months nor more than 60 months on Count 1 (DUI), and

of not less than six months nor more than 12 months on Count 2 (Simple

Possession-Heroin), to run consecutively to Count 1, along with a mandatory

minimum fine of $200 on Count 4 (Driving while Operating Privileges

Suspended/Revoked).      The court provided the following reason for its

sentence:

     TRIAL COURT: Thank you, Mr. Whiteman, I did review the
     presentence report prepared for me by the probation department.
     What the [trial court] cannot avoid is your history. When you
     come before the [trial court] for sentencing, every individual that’s
     before me has to be taken into consideration. Not just who they
     are, who their relationships are, where they live, education, but
     significantly their criminal history. That’s what puts you up in the
     sentencing recommendations and guidelines. You have nine prior
     convictions. The DUI in 2019. Some significantly serious burglary
     charges in ’07.

     I did note that you were full time employed before jail with a very
     good work history as well as what your attorney brought to light
     which was your compliance in the Wayne County Correctional
     Facility. But I think the most glaring issue in your history and the
     information provided in the report is where your attorney started,
     which is addiction. It focuses on a very young age and a
     progression from alcohol, prescription medication, marijuana,
     cocaine and the end result methamphetamine, which apparently
     was being used on a daily basis prior to either this charge or
     incarceration.

     It was noted in the report that you did apply to the drug and
     treatment court; however, you refused what was requested of
     you, which was in-patient. And then again when you’ve been
     evaluated now in jail, in-patient is still the recommendation.
     There’s a serious addiction issue. You’re only thirty-six years old.
     There’s a lot of life left to live, but if you don’t take your drug

                                     -4-
J-S47038-23

       addiction seriously, this just continues to happen. It’s a revolving
       door when drugs remain in the picture. I do feel a state drug
       treatment program would benefit you significantly because I think
       you are someone who is certainly committed to doing the right
       thing when given the opportunity. You’ve done so in jail. You’ve
       done so with your work. I’m hopeful that you’ll take advantage of
       that program to the highest extent because it does provide the
       best way for you to maintain recovery once released.

N.T. at 5-7.

       Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration of sentence, which

the trial court denied on June 27, 2023. This timely appeal followed.

       The trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to P.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 15, 2023, and

Appellant complied timely, raising             six related   issues implicating the

discretionary aspects of his sentence.6          On August 15, 2023, the trial court

issued a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which is incorporated in the

certified record.

____________________________________________

6 Our review has revealed that counsel for Appellant failed to attach a copy of

the concise statement to the Anders brief as required by our appellate rules.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d). Nevertheless, for the following reasons, we refrain
from taking any action other than reminding counsel of the obligation set forth
in Rule 2111(d). Counsel's omission is not a jurisdictional defect, and the
appellate rules give this Court discretion to forego corrective action where
briefing defects are minor. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In addition, our examination
of the certified record confirms that counsel filed the concise statement in
accordance with the trial court's order, counsel's omission has not hampered
our review, and the Commonwealth has not objected to the defect. Finally,
we note that because counsel has filed an Anders brief and requested leave
to withdraw, we have an independent obligation to review all appellate
submissions to ascertain whether any non-frivolous issues are present.
Accordingly, we find further corrective action is unnecessary.

                                           -5-
J-S47038-23

     On appeal, counsel files an Anders brief and an accompanying

application to withdraw as counsel.    The Anders brief raises the following

claim:

     Whether the lower court abused its discretion by imposing a
     sentence which was manifestly unreasonable based upon the
     factors reviewed by the court and that the court failed to properly
     and fully consider all mitigating evidence and reports consistent
     with the application of the requirements of the Sentencing Code?

Anders Brief at 5.

     Before reviewing the merits of this appeal, this Court must first

determine whether appointed counsel has fulfilled the necessary procedural

requirements for withdrawing as counsel. Commonwealth v. Miller, 715

A.2d 1203, 1207 (Pa. Super. 1998).

     To withdraw under Anders, court-appointed counsel must satisfy

certain technical requirements.   First, counsel must “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.”

Miller, 715 A.2d at 1207. Second, counsel must file an Anders brief, in which

counsel:

     (1) provide[s] a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
     citations to the record; (2) refer[s] to anything in the record that
     counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set[s] forth
     counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state[s]
     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.

                                      -6-
J-S47038-23

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Finally, counsel must furnish a copy of the

Anders brief to the defendant and advise the defendant “of [the defendant’s]

right to retain new 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).

      If counsel meets the above obligations, 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); see also Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190,

1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (holding that the Anders procedure

requires this Court to review “the entire record with consideration first of the

issues raised by counsel. ... [T]his review does not require this Court to act as

counsel or otherwise advocate on behalf of a party. Rather, it requires us only

to conduct a review of the record to ascertain if[,] on its face, there are non-

frivolous issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated. We

need not analyze those issues of arguable merit; just identify them, deny the

motion to withdraw, and order counsel to analyze them.”). It is only when all

of the procedural and substantive requirements are satisfied that counsel will

be permitted to withdraw.

      Here, counsel has complied with the above procedural obligations, and

Appellant has not responded.     We must, therefore, review the record and

                                      -7-
J-S47038-23

analyze whether this appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Our review begins

with the claim Appellant raises in his brief.

      The Anders brief challenges the discretionary aspect of Appellant’s

sentence. Pursuant to statute, a discretionary sentencing challenge does not

entitle an appellant to “review as of right.”   See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b);

Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en

banc). Instead, Appellant must petition this Court for permission to appeal

the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Caldwell, supra. As this Court

has explained:

      To reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, we
      conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant
      has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 903; (2)
      whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a
      motion to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P. [708];
      (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f);
      and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence
      appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42
      [Pa.C.S.A.] § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      Counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and preserved the discretionary

aspects of sentencing claim in a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of

sentence. Although the Anders brief does not include the requisite Pa.R.A.P.

2119(f) statement, the Commonwealth’s brief does not object to the omission.

Because the absence of the statement does not hamper our review, we decline

to find waiver on this basis. See Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869,

872 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[I]n the absence of any objection from the

                                      -8-
J-S47038-23

Commonwealth, we are empowered to review claims that otherwise fail to

comply with Rule 2119(f).”) (citation omitted).    We turn, then, to whether

there has been raised a substantial question that the sentence appealed from

is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

      “The determination of whether a particular case raises a substantial

question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, however, in

order to establish that there is a substantial question, the appellant must show

actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or

contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.”

Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608, 612 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal

citations omitted).

      “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines,

Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing

Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010).

“[W]here the trial court is informed by a presentence investigation report, it

is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and

considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion

should not be disturbed.” Edwards, 194 A.3d at 637 (citation omitted). “The

sentencing judge can satisfy the requirement that reasons for imposing

sentence be placed on the record by indicating that he or she has been

informed by the presentence investigation report; thus properly considering

and weighing all relevant factors.” Id. (citation omitted).

                                     -9-
J-S47038-23

         Moreover, we have recognized “the imposition of consecutive, rather

than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most

extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly

harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.”

Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en

banc).

      Finally, it is well-settled that the determination of whether a substantial

question exists must be done prior to—and be divorced from—the

determination of the potential merits of an issue. Commonwealth v.

Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17, 19 (Pa. 1987). If it were otherwise, a challenger

would “in effect obtain [ ] an appeal as of right from the discretionary aspects

of a sentence”—a result that would violate statutory law. Id.

      Here, Appellant has not raised a substantial question that his sentence

is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental

norms of the sentencing process. In sentencing Appellant, the trial court was

required to “consider the general principles and standards of the Sentencing

Code.” Commonwealth v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316, 322 (Pa. Super. 1983).

Section 9721 of the Sentencing Code expresses these general principles in the

following manner:

      the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is
      consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the
      offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on
      the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

                                     - 10 -
J-S47038-23

      At Appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated on the record

that it had reviewed Appellant's presentence investigation report.           N.T.,

6/15/23, at 4, 5-7.      Thus, under relevant authority discussed supra, we

presume   the   trial   court   weighed   all   appropriate   sentencing   factors.

Furthermore, the trial court acknowledged that Appellant’s prior criminal

history elevated his guideline ranges, and it engaged in an extensive review

of Appellant's ongoing, serious addiction issues, observing not only that

Appellant had not rectified such issues but also that they were increasing in

severity and that Appellant had refused in-patient drug treatment previously

requested of him.       N.T. at 6-7.    The trial court opined, therefore, that

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs warranted the imposition of a state sentence

to allow Appellant to avail himself of the state drug treatment programs. N.T.

at 6-7.

      This record shows that the trial court considered the general principles

and standards of the Sentencing Code and applied them in imposing an

aggregate sentence of 18 to 72 months’ incarceration that is neither extreme

nor unduly lengthy. Under such circumstances, Appellant's claim does not

raise a substantial question that the sentence imposed was inappropriate

under the Sentencing Code.        Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of

Appellant's claim.

      Finally, after an independent review of the entire record, we discern

nothing that arguably could support this appeal.        See Commonwealth v.

Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753, 758 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The filing of the Anders

                                       - 11 -
J-S47038-23

brief triggers the duty of our Court to conduct an independent review of the

entire record to make sure counsel has fully represented his client's

interest.”).   Because the appeal is, therefore, wholly frivolous, we affirm

Appellant's judgment of sentence and grant counsel's petition for leave to

withdraw appearance.

      Petition for leave to withdraw as counsel granted. Judgment of sentence

affirmed.

Date: 1/24/2024

                                    - 12 -