Court Opinion

ID: 9840654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:09:10.409213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:57.456047
License: Public Domain

J-S28024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANTE ALAN BONNER                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 328 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 17, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-27-CR-0000008-2023

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                           FILED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

       Appellant, Dante Alan Bonner, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on February 17, 2023. In this direct appeal, Appellant's counsel filed

a petition for leave to withdraw and an accompanying brief pursuant to

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

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We conclude that Appellant’s counsel

has complied with the procedural requirements necessary to withdraw.

Moreover, after independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the

appeal is wholly frivolous. We, therefore, grant counsel’s petition to withdraw

and affirm the judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28024-23

       On February 17, 2023, Appellant pleaded guilty to assault by a prisoner

and simple assault.1, 2 That same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2703(a)(1)(ii) and 2701, respectively.

2 The affidavit of probable cause declared:

       [At 8:00 a.m. on September 1, 2022, Pennsylvania State Police]
       Marienville was contacted by [State Correctional Institute (“SCI”)]
       Forest staff in reference to a staff assault which took place on
       [August 31, 2022.] It was reported that Inmate [Appellant]
       stabbed [correctional officer (“C/O”) Hess and C/O Stambaugh]
       with a makeshift weapon.

       [On September 13, 2022,] I spoke to C/O Stambaugh relative to
       this investigation. C/O Stambaugh informed me that he was
       working on “A” block on the day in question. He was supervising
       inmate [Appellant] who was in the middle of a virtual visit. Inmate
       [Appellant] became irate when his virtual visit was terminated.
       C/O Hess was in the vicinity and responded to their area. Inmate
       [Appellant] then proceeded to strike C/O Hess in the head. He
       then grabbed inmate [Appellant] and tried to restrain him. C/O
       Stambaugh further advised that he was then struck in the face
       and head by inmate [Appellant]. After inmate [Appellant] was on
       the ground, he noticed that he ([Appellant]) was holding a weapon
       in his hand. C/O Stambaugh related he then realized [Appellant]
       had struck him in the face and head with the weapon he was
       holding. He related he was then able to gain control of the
       weapon. Additional staff then showed up and [Appellant] was fully
       subdued.

       [C/O] Stambaugh further related that he sustained cuts to the top
       of his head and the side of his face near his right ear. These
       wounds were caused [by] the weapon inmate [Appellant] had
       brandished. He is unsure where or how inmate [Appellant]
       acquired the weapon. He related he and C/O Hess were treated
       at medical and then transported to Clarion Hospital for treatment.
       The wound by his right ear was cleaned and “glued” while the
       wound on [the] top of his head [was] cleaned and bandaged.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S28024-23

serve 57 to 114 months in prison for the assault by a prisoner conviction and

to serve a consecutive term of 12 to 24 months in prison for the assault

conviction. Further, the trial court ordered that Appellant serve his sentence

consecutively to the sentence that Appellant was then serving.

       Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. However, Appellant filed

a timely notice of appeal and, on appeal, Appellant’s counsel filed a petition

for leave to withdraw and an Anders brief.

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

determine     whether      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, 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

____________________________________________

                                             ...

       C/O Hess [] advised that [Appellant] [] unexpectedly struck him
       on the right side of his face and the left side of his face near his
       lip. The rest of the assault was “a blur” but he remembers getting
       struck several more times. He and C/O Stambaugh then forcibly
       took [Appellant] to the floor. After they were on the floor, C/O
       Stambaugh identified a weapon in [Appellant’s] hand.            The
       weapon was taken from [Appellant] who was then fully restrained.

       . . . [C/O Hess] received nine [] stitches in the cut near his lip.

Affidavit of Probable Cause, 12/1/22, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted).

                                           -3-
J-S28024-23

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.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

      Finally, counsel must furnish a copy of the Anders brief to his or her

client and advise the client “of [the client’s] right to retain new counsel,

proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court’s attention.”

Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      If counsel meets all of the above obligations, “it then becomes the

responsibility of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the

proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal

is in fact wholly frivolous.”   Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5; 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

                                      -4-
J-S28024-23

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.

      In the case at bar, counsel complied with all of the above procedural

obligations. We must, therefore, review the entire record and analyze whether

this appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Our analysis begins with the claim

raised in the Anders brief:      whether the trial court erred when it ran

Appellant’s sentence consecutively. See Appellant’s Brief at 13.

      Appellant’s claim on appeal challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. Appellant’s claim is waived, as Appellant did not raise the claim at

sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030,

1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (“issues challenging the discretionary

aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by

presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings.

Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is

waived”). Further, since the claim on appeal is waived, the claim is frivolous

under Anders.     Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888-889 (Pa.

Super. 2016) (holding that, under Anders, “[a]n issue that is waived is

frivolous”); Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.3d 285, 291 (Pa. Super.

                                     -5-
J-S28024-23

2008) (holding: “this issue has been waived. Having been waived, pursuing

this matter on direct appeal is frivolous”).

      We have independently considered the issue raised within Appellant’s

brief and we have determined that the claim is frivolous. In addition, after an

independent review of the entire record, we see nothing that might arguably

support this appeal. The appeal is therefore wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we

affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition for leave

to withdraw.

      Petition for leave to withdraw appearance granted.         Judgment of

sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/19/2023

                                      -6-