J-S46033-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DARRIN M. BATTLE, : : Appellant : No. 1979 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 13, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal Division, No. CP-40-CR-0000273-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
imposed following his conviction of one count each of delivery and
possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.1 Additionally, Paul
Withdraw as Counsel and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v.
California
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
Battle was arrested after selling heroin to a confidential informant.
Following a trial, a jury convicted Battle of the above offenses. At
sentencing, the trial court found that the drug sale took place within 1000
1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). J-S46033-14
feet of a school, and applied the school zone sentencing enhancement2
before sentencing Battle to serve 24 to 60 months in prison. Battle filed a
post-sentence Motion to Modify Sentence, which the trial court denied on
a
Petition to Withdraw as counsel. On that same date, the trial court granted
appellate counsel.
Attorney Galante has filed a brief pursuant to Anders which raises the
following questions for our review:
1.
evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict [Battle] of delivery of a controlled substance?
2.
Anders Brief at 4. Attorney Galante filed a separate Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel on May 13, 2014. Battle filed neither a pro se brief, nor retained
alternate counsel for this appeal.
Anders brief, this Court may not review the
merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010)
(citation omitted). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an appeal is
2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317.
-2- J-S46033-14
frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he/she 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 counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points
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) and
(4) 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 Anders]
t its own review of the
Edwards, 906 A.2d at 1228
(citation omitted).
-3- J-S46033-14
Here, Attorney Galante has substantially complied with each of the
procedural requirements of Anders. Attorney Galante indicates that he
reviewed the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous.
Further, Attorney Galante Anders brief comports with the requirements
set forth by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Santiago. Finally, the
record contains a copy of the letter that Attorney Galante sent to Battle,
advising him of his rights to proceed pro se or retain alternate counsel and
file additional claims, and stating Attorney Galante
permission to withdraw.
Before we may address the merits of the issues raised in the Anders
Brief, we must first determine whether Battle has preserved any claims for
appellate review. Whenever the trial court orders an appellant to file a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), the appellant must comply in order to preserve his claims for
appellate review. Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
A failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) concise statement after entry of an
order requesting the statement, regardless of the length of the delay, results
in automatic waiver. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335,
338 (Pa. Super. 2012). A failure by appointed counsel to file a timely court-
ordered concise statement on behalf of a criminal appellant constitutes per
se ineffectiveness. Id. at 340. Under Rule 1925(c)(3), the remedy for per
se ineffectiveness in criminal cases is no longer collateral relief, but to
-4- J-S46033-14
remand to the trial court for the filing of a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing
the issues raised in an untimely Rule 1925(b) concise statement. Id. at
341.
Here, the trial court ordered Battle to file a Rule 1925(b) concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal on or before November 7,
2013. Attorney Galante did not file a Concise Statement on behalf of Battle
until December 19, 2013. Thereafter, the trial court entered its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) Opinion, wherein it refused to address the issues raised in the
untimely Concise Statement filed by Attorney Galante.
court-ordered deadline constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel.
See Thompson, 39 A.3d at 340. Ordinarily, we would remand for the trial
court to file a Rule 1925(a)
untimely Concise Statement. See id. However, our independent review of
the record discloses a sentencing error made by the trial court when it
applied the school zone sentencing enhancement, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317.
In Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155-56, 2163 (2013),
the United States Supreme Court ruled that any fact increasing the
mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is considered an element of the
crime to be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Alleyne decision, therefore, renders those Pennsylvania mandatory
minimum sentencing statutes that do not pertain to prior convictions
-5- J-S46033-14
constitutionally infirm insofar as they permit a judge to automatically
standard. Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 117 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(en banc); see also id. at 117 n.4 (wherein this Court lists the statutes,
including section 6317, that are unconstitutional due to the Alleyne
decision).3
Instantly, the jury issued no finding as to whether Battle committed
the offenses of delivery and possession with intent to deliver within 1,000
feet of a school. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317(a).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S46033-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DARRIN M. BATTLE, : : Appellant : No. 1979 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on August 13, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal Division, No. CP-40-CR-0000273-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
imposed following his conviction of one count each of delivery and
possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.1 Additionally, Paul
Withdraw as Counsel and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v.
California
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
Battle was arrested after selling heroin to a confidential informant.
Following a trial, a jury convicted Battle of the above offenses. At
sentencing, the trial court found that the drug sale took place within 1000
1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). J-S46033-14
feet of a school, and applied the school zone sentencing enhancement2
before sentencing Battle to serve 24 to 60 months in prison. Battle filed a
post-sentence Motion to Modify Sentence, which the trial court denied on
a
Petition to Withdraw as counsel. On that same date, the trial court granted
appellate counsel.
Attorney Galante has filed a brief pursuant to Anders which raises the
following questions for our review:
1.
evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict [Battle] of delivery of a controlled substance?
2.
Anders Brief at 4. Attorney Galante filed a separate Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel on May 13, 2014. Battle filed neither a pro se brief, nor retained
alternate counsel for this appeal.
Anders brief, this Court may not review the
merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010)
(citation omitted). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes an appeal is
2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317.
-2- J-S46033-14
frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he/she 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 counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points
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) and
(4) 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 Anders]
t its own review of the
Edwards, 906 A.2d at 1228
(citation omitted).
-3- J-S46033-14
Here, Attorney Galante has substantially complied with each of the
procedural requirements of Anders. Attorney Galante indicates that he
reviewed the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous.
Further, Attorney Galante Anders brief comports with the requirements
set forth by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Santiago. Finally, the
record contains a copy of the letter that Attorney Galante sent to Battle,
advising him of his rights to proceed pro se or retain alternate counsel and
file additional claims, and stating Attorney Galante
permission to withdraw.
Before we may address the merits of the issues raised in the Anders
Brief, we must first determine whether Battle has preserved any claims for
appellate review. Whenever the trial court orders an appellant to file a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), the appellant must comply in order to preserve his claims for
appellate review. Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
A failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) concise statement after entry of an
order requesting the statement, regardless of the length of the delay, results
in automatic waiver. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335,
338 (Pa. Super. 2012). A failure by appointed counsel to file a timely court-
ordered concise statement on behalf of a criminal appellant constitutes per
se ineffectiveness. Id. at 340. Under Rule 1925(c)(3), the remedy for per
se ineffectiveness in criminal cases is no longer collateral relief, but to
-4- J-S46033-14
remand to the trial court for the filing of a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing
the issues raised in an untimely Rule 1925(b) concise statement. Id. at
341.
Here, the trial court ordered Battle to file a Rule 1925(b) concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal on or before November 7,
2013. Attorney Galante did not file a Concise Statement on behalf of Battle
until December 19, 2013. Thereafter, the trial court entered its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) Opinion, wherein it refused to address the issues raised in the
untimely Concise Statement filed by Attorney Galante.
court-ordered deadline constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel.
See Thompson, 39 A.3d at 340. Ordinarily, we would remand for the trial
court to file a Rule 1925(a)
untimely Concise Statement. See id. However, our independent review of
the record discloses a sentencing error made by the trial court when it
applied the school zone sentencing enhancement, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317.
In Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155-56, 2163 (2013),
the United States Supreme Court ruled that any fact increasing the
mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is considered an element of the
crime to be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Alleyne decision, therefore, renders those Pennsylvania mandatory
minimum sentencing statutes that do not pertain to prior convictions
-5- J-S46033-14
constitutionally infirm insofar as they permit a judge to automatically
standard. Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 117 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(en banc); see also id. at 117 n.4 (wherein this Court lists the statutes,
including section 6317, that are unconstitutional due to the Alleyne
decision).3
Instantly, the jury issued no finding as to whether Battle committed
the offenses of delivery and possession with intent to deliver within 1,000
feet of a school. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317(a). Pursuant to Alleyne, the trial
court erred by deciding this point at sentencing, as a sentencing factor under
section 6317(b). See
judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.4 Further, because
3 A sentencing claim that invokes the reasoning of Alleyne implicates the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661, 664 (Pa. Super. 2013). Although Battle failed to raise this claim in either his post-trial Motion to Modify Sentence or his Concise Statement, a challenge to an illegal sentence cannot be waived and may be reviewed sua sponte by this Court. Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2009).
4 Upon remand, the trial court may conduct a sentencing hearing, if necessary. If Battle chooses to appeal his judgment of sentence, he may pursue the claims raised in his Concise Statement (and any others he may wish to raise) by filing a timely notice of appeal. Upon any further appeal, counsel is directed to observe the dictates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-6- J-S46033-14
Withdraw as Counsel.5
Judgment of Sentence vacated; case remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this Memorandum. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel denied.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
5 Upon remand, the trial court may appoint new counsel for Battle, if necessary.
-7-