Court Opinion

ID: 9407336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 16:09:58.988077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.000274
License: Public Domain

J-S08027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JORGE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1109 MDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 6, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-36-CR-0000357-2022

BEFORE:       OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                               FILED: JULY 6, 2023

        Jorge Antonio Rodriguez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following

his open guilty plea to failing to comply with the registration requirements1 of

the Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act2 (SORNA).

Appellant’s attorney, Lancaster County Assistant Public Defender MaryJean

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

118 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(1) (“An individual who is subject to registration under
42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.13 (relating to applicability) commits an offense if he
knowingly fails to . . . register with the Pennsylvania State Police as required
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15 ( . . . period of registration), 9799.19 ( . . . initial
registration) or 9799.25 ( . . . verification by sexual offenders and
Pennsylvania State Police)[.]”).

2   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 to 9799.75.
J-S08027-23

Glick, Esquire (Counsel), has filed an Anders3 petition to withdraw and brief.

We grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

                           I. Guilty Plea & Sentencing

       On July 6, 2022, Appellant, represented by another assistant public

defender, entered an open guilty plea to failing to comply with his SORNA

registration requirements.        The parties provided the following undisputed

factual summary. In connection with a 2019 conviction for indecent assault,

a misdemeanor of the second degree, Appellant was sentenced to a term of

imprisonment and required to register under SORNA.4 See N.T. at 4. He

initially provided his home address to be the prison address, 625 East King

Street, Lancaster. Id. Appellant “did not have a place to parole out to [sic]

so he maxed out his sentence” and was released on September 9, 2021. See

id. at 4; Information, 2/9/22.

       After Appellant was released from prison, he was transient. N.T. at 4.

He reported to the Lancaster City Police to register under SORNA within the

requisite time period, but he could not complete his registration because he

____________________________________________

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). The Commonwealth has submitted a
letter, indicating it would not file a brief.

4 The docket number and sentence for the indecent assault conviction are not
apparent in the present record. Nevertheless, defense counsel stated at the
July 6, 2022, plea hearing that Appellant had 14 years and nine months
remaining on his SORNA registration. N.T. Guilty Plea, 7/6/22, at 5.

                                           -2-
J-S08027-23

did not have official photo identification, as required. Id. Defense counsel

explained the probation department can assist SORNA registrants with

registration, but because Appellant had maxed out and completed his

sentence, he did not have that “support structure.” Id. Appellant then went

to the prison to obtain a photo identification, but the prison did not provide

that service. Id. at 4. Thus, Appellant’s registered SORNA address remained

the prison’s address.5 Additionally, we note, he had a substance abuse issue

using “K-2.”6 Id. at 5.

       Subsequently, Appellant reported his backpack, including personal

items, were stolen. At that time, Appellant was “living” “on the street” on the

800 block of North Christian Street in Lancaster. N.T. at 3; Information. The

police “realized they had a warrant for him for” the underlying failure to

comply with his SORNA registration.7 N.T. at 5.

____________________________________________

5 We note the fact Appellant was transient was not an obstacle to registering.
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.10(3) (one of SORNA’s purposes is “[t]o require
individuals convicted . . . of certain sexual offenses who fail to maintain a
residence and are therefore homeless but can still be found within the borders
of this Commonwealth to register with the Pennsylvania State Police”).

6“K-2”, or “K2,” is a synthetic marijuana. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 197
A.3d 742, 746 (Pa. Super. 2018).

7 The criminal information, however, stated that on November 29, 2021, a
police officer found Appellant sleeping on the street, and “after checking to be
sure [he] was ok,” the officer verified Appellant was required to registered
under SORNA. Information.

                                           -3-
J-S08027-23

      As stated above, on July 6, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea

to failing to register, a felony of the third degree. Both an oral and written

plea colloquy were completed.       The case then proceeded immediately to

sentencing.      The   standard guideline    range   was 12    to   18   months’

imprisonment. N.T. at 2, 5. Defense counsel requested a county sentence so

that Appellant could work with the probation department “on a local level” and

receive assistance with housing and mental health and substance abuse

issues. Id. at 5-6.

      The trial court agreed, and imposed a sentence of time served (6

months) to 23 months’ imprisonment, with a consecutive two years’

probation.    N.T. at 5, 8.   The court also directed Appellant was not to be

released from county prison “until an approved parole plan is in place, which

is to include approved housing.” Id. at 8.

      Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. In response to the trial court’s

order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal,

Counsel filed a statement of intent to file an Anders petition to withdraw from

representation. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). The trial court accordingly issued

a statement that it would not file an opinion.

                  II. Anders Petition to Withdraw & Brief

      When an attorney seeks to withdraw under Anders, we first examine

the request to withdraw before addressing the merits of the issue raised on

appeal.   Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super.

                                      -4-
J-S08027-23

2013) (en banc). An attorney seeking to withdraw from representation on

direct appeal must:

      1) 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; 2) furnish a copy
      of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he
      or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional
      arguments that the defendant seems worthy of the court’s
      attention.

Id.

      Pursuant to Santiago, the accompanying Anders brief 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.

Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1032, quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

      Here, Counsel’s petition to withdraw states she has conducted a review

of the record, including the docket, filings, written plea colloquy, and plea and

sentencing hearing transcript, and well as statutory and caselaw, and has

determined this appeal is wholly frivolous. The petition states Counsel has

provided Appellant with copies of the Anders petition and brief, and has

attached a copy of a letter sent to Appellant, which advised him of his right to

retain a private attorney or proceed pro se. We note Appellant has not filed

a response.

                                      -5-
J-S08027-23

        The Anders brief identifies three potential claims for our review — first,

whether Appellant’s guilty plea was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly

entered. Anders Brief at 7-9. Counsel suggests it was, as the trial court

asked all the questions required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 for a plea colloquy.

Specifically, Counsel recounts the court properly asked Appellant if he

understood the elements of the charge, the factual basis for the plea, the

maximum potential sentence, and that the sentence would be determined by

the trial judge. Id. at 7-8. Counsel states that in the written plea colloquy,

Appellant acknowledged he had a right to a trial by jury, he would be

presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the

maximum sentence was seven years’ incarceration and a $15,000 fine. Id.

at 8.

        Next, Counsel contends the sentence imposed was legal, and the six-

month minimum was at the bottom of the mitigated guideline range. Anders

Brief at 9 & n.2.

        Finally, Counsel avers the following: Appellant was released from the

present sentence on October 12, 2022, “to White Deer Run at Allenwood, and

at some point [thereafter] became homeless[. H]e is presently registered . . .

as living near the area of Binn’s Park[. C]ounsel confirmed that he is working

for Teck’s News Agency, which is a short distance from the park.” Anders

Brief at 10. Counsel then explains Appellant’s “only complaint was that it took

                                       -6-
J-S08027-23

significant time[, approximately three months,] for county probation and

parole to develop a placement plan for him[.]” Id. at 9.

      In response to this claim, Counsel reasons that plea counsel had

“requested this resolution . . . in an effort to prevent . . . future incarceration”

for the same offense. Anders Brief at 9. Furthermore, Counsel learned from

the probation and parole officer, “it took three months to find a placement for

[Appellant] partly because he refused at least two placements offered to

him.[ ]” Id. at 9 & n.3.

                                  III. Analysis

      We now “make an independent evaluation of the record to determine

whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.”      See Commonwealth v.

Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 781 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

      First, we agree with Counsel there was no defect in Appellant’s entry of

a guilty plea. This Court has explained:

      “A valid plea colloquy must delve into six areas: 1) the nature of
      the charges, 2) the factual basis of the plea, 3) the right to a jury
      trial, 4) the presumption of innocence, 5) the sentencing ranges,
      and 6) the plea court’s power to deviate from any recommended
      sentence.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, Comment.

           Additionally, a written plea colloquy that is read, completed
      and signed by the defendant and made part of the record may
      serve as the defendant’s plea colloquy when supplemented by an
      oral, on-the-record examination. “[A] plea of guilty will not be
      deemed invalid if the circumstances surrounding the entry of the
      plea disclose that the defendant had a full understanding of the
      nature and consequences of his plea and that he knowingly and
      voluntarily decided to enter the plea.” Our law presumes that a
      defendant who enters a guilty plea was aware of what he was
      doing. He bears the burden of proving otherwise.” . . . Moreover,

                                       -7-
J-S08027-23

       “[t]he law does not require that [the defendant] be pleased with
       the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of guilty: All that is
       required is that [his] decision to plead guilty be knowingly,
       voluntarily and intelligently made.”

Reid, 117 A.3d at 782-83 (some citations omitted & paragraph break added).

       The record indicates the trial court properly explored the inquiries

required by Rule 590.        At the plea hearing, both the Commonwealth and

defense     counsel     summarized       the   underlying   facts,   and   Appellant

acknowledged there was a factual basis for the plea. N.T. at 2-5. Both the

oral and written plea colloquy informed Appellant: (1) the maximum possible

sentence for failing to register was seven years’ imprisonment, and the

maximum fine $15,000; and (2) as there was no agreement as to the

sentence, the court would determine the sentence. Id. at 3-4; Guilty Plea

Colloquy & Post-Sentence Rights, 6/6/22, at 3-4.8 Finally, the written colloquy

advised Appellant of his right to a jury trial and right to be presumed innocent

until proven guilty.      Guilty Plea Colloquy & Post-Sentence Rights at 2-3.

Accordingly, we agree with Counsel that any claim that Appellant’s plea was

not voluntarily or intelligently entered would be frivolous. See Reid, 117 A.3d

at 782-83.

____________________________________________

8The written plea colloquy falls under the heading, “Order – Sentence-Penalty
Imposed,” in the certified electronic record. Furthermore, although the plea
hearing was held on July 6, 2022, the written colloquy was signed with a date
of June 6, 2022.

                                           -8-
J-S08027-23

      Next, we review Appellant’s sentence.      First, the sentence of time-

served (6 months) to 23 months, with a consecutive two years’ probation, was

legal. The failure to comply with registration conviction is graded as a felony

of the third degree, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. See

18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(3). Additionally, there would be no non-frivolous challenge

to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.      Whereas defense counsel

requested a sentence within the standard guideline range of 12 to 18 months,

the trial court imposed a shorter sentence, of time served (six months) to 23

months.   N.T. at 5, 8.    Additionally, the trial court agreed with defense

counsel’s suggestion that probation be imposed, so that Appellant could have

assistance from the probation department with his SORNA registration

requirements, as well as housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues,

and thus avoid another conviction of this same offense. See id. at 6-8.

      Finally, we consider Appellant’s issue with the “significant time for

county probation and parole to develop a placement for him[.]” See Anders

Brief at 9. We note the circumstances of Appellant’s release from prison and

probation and parole are dehors the record, and thus we cannot, on this

record, verify Counsel’s summation. Nevertheless, any issues with the terms

of Appellant’s release from prison would not be proper for a direct appeal from

the judgment of sentence. Instead, we would be tasked with reviewing the

appropriateness of the pre-trial court, plea hearing, sentencing, and any post-

                                     -9-
J-S08027-23

sentencing proceedings.    Accordingly, any present claim concerning the

probation department’s efforts to develop a placement plan would be frivolous.

                              IV. Conclusion

      In sum, we conclude there would be no non-frivolous issue in this

appeal, where Appellant’s plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered, the

trial court imposed a legal and appropriate sentence, and any challenge to the

probation department’s development of a placement plan for Appellant would

not be proper in the present appeal.    We thus grant Counsel’s petition to

withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.

      Counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation granted. Judgment

of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/6/2023

                                    - 10 -