Court Opinion

ID: 9895288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 17:09:11.784846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:57.075740
License: Public Domain

J-A22014-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 DESIRAE FEITL                            :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :     No. 215 WDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 1, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-10-CR-0000749-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                        FILED: November 6, 2023

      Desirae Feitl appeals from the judgment of sentence of six and one-half

to sixteen years of incarceration imposed after she pled guilty to one count of

delivery of a controlled substance. In this Court, Benjamin B. Levine, Esquire,

has filed an application to withdraw as Appellant’s counsel and brief pursuant

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

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

application to withdraw and order new briefing.

      Appellant was a member of a large-scale drug distribution ring. At the

time of her arrest, she possessed heroin and fentanyl. Following a grand jury

investigation, Appellant was indicted and charged with numerous offenses

related to the drug distribution ring. Thereafter, Appellant pled guilty to one

count of delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to the term
J-A22014-23

indicated above. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se notice of appeal. Plea

counsel withdrew, and the court appointed Attorney Levine, who, pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), filed in the trial court a statement noting his intention

to withdraw from representation. Based thereon, the trial court transmitted

the record to this Court in lieu of filing a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

      Counsel filed in this Court both an Anders brief and a petition seeking

leave to withdraw as counsel. The following legal principles guide our review:

             Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders
      must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious
      examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly
      frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth
      issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any
      other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation
      thereof.

             Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders
      petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the
      right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional
      points worthy of this Court’s attention.

             If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical
      requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to
      withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g.,
      directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an
      advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). By contrast, if counsel’s
      petition and brief satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our own
      review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous. If the
      appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and affirm
      the judgment of sentence. However, if there are non-frivolous
      issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the filing of an
      advocate’s brief.

Commonwealth v. Cook, 175 A.3d 345, 348 (Pa.Super. 2017) (cleaned up).

Our Supreme Court has further detailed counsel’s duties as follows:

      [I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s
      petition to withdraw, counsel must: (1) provide a summary of the

                                      -2-
J-A22014-23

      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, supra at 361.

      Based upon our examination of counsel’s application to withdraw and

Anders brief, we conclude that counsel has not substantially complied with

the requirements set forth above. While counsel provided a summary of the

procedural history and facts, his Anders brief is devoid of specific citations to

the record that would indicate a diligent examination of the guilty plea and

sentencing proceedings. See Anders brief at 2-3. Therefore, he did not fulfill

the requirements of Santiago.

      Moreover, counsel failed to ensure that the certified record was

complete, as the notes of testimony from the October 5, 2022 guilty plea

hearing and the December 1, 2022 sentencing hearing are not included.

Indeed, the criminal docket reveals that the pertinent transcripts were not

requested until May 19, 2023, which is one week after counsel filed the

Anders brief with this Court.     “Without these notes of testimony, counsel

could not have fulfilled his duty to review the entire record for any non-

frivolous issues.”   Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250

(Pa.Super. 2015) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).             Under these

                                      -3-
J-A22014-23

circumstances, “[w]e therefore cannot conclude that counsel has fulfilled his

obligations.” Id. at 1251 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Thus, we deny Attorney Levine’s application to withdraw and instruct

counsel to, within sixty days, (1) obtain the missing notes of testimony and

secure their inclusion in a supplemental certified record; and (2) following

review of the complete record, file an advocate’s brief or a new Anders brief

and application to withdraw.     The Commonwealth shall have thirty days

thereafter to file a response.

      Application of Benjamin B. Levine, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel is

denied. New briefs are ordered. Panel jurisdiction is retained.

                                    -4-