Com. v. Dower, T., Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 1598 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S32037-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THOMAS M DOWER, JR. : : Appellant : No. 1598 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 22, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000129-2024

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : THOMAS M DOWER, JR. : : Appellant : No. 1599 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 22, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000352-2024

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 16, 2025

Thomas M. Dower appeals from the judgments of sentence entered by

the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County after he was convicted on two

separate dockets. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to withdraw his

representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S32037-25

remand to allow Appellant to file a pro se response to counsel’s petition to

withdraw and Anders brief.

Appellant’s convictions arise from two separate criminal informations.

Under Docket CP-54-CR-0000129-2024, Appellant was convicted of Driving

While Operating Privilege Suspended (75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b) – DUI related).

Under Docket CP-54-CR-0000352-2024, Appellant was convicted of another

1543(b) violation as well as Vehicle Registration Suspended and Operating

Vehicle Without Required Financial Responsibility.

On October 22, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing for the

convictions on both dockets. The trial court imposed two consecutive terms

of six to twelve months’ imprisonment for Appellant’s convictions. On October

30, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal at each docket. On December 12,

2024, this Court consolidated the cases sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513.

As noted above, after this appeal was filed, counsel filed a petition to

withdraw along with an Anders brief. We must evaluate counsel’s request to

withdraw before we reach the merits of the appeal to determine whether

counsel has complied with the procedures set forth in Anders and its progeny.

Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1195 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en

banc). To do so, we are guided by the following principles:

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 ....

-2- J-S32037-25

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.

Commonwealth v. Falcey, 310 A.3d 313, 314–15 (Pa.Super. 2024) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa.Super. 2007)

(citations omitted)).

We emphasize that upon the filing of a petition to withdraw by counsel

pursuant to Anders, “the defendant may also file a brief, proceeding pro se,

to the extent that he has issues or other matters for the court to consider

and/or a response to make to counsel's brief.” Commonwealth v. Santiago,

602 Pa. 159, 179, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (2009).

In this case, counsel submitted both a petition to withdraw and an

Anders brief averring that this appeal is frivolous. Attached to counsel’s

application is a letter dated June 16, 2025, which properly advised Appellant

of his right to retain alternative counsel, proceed pro se, or raise supplemental

arguments on his own that Appellant deemed worthy of this Court’s attention.

After counsel filed his petition to withdraw and Anders brief, Appellant

filed numerous pro se motions and filings which included a request to file a

supplemental pro se brief. Our review of the record shows that this Court

mistakenly entered per curiam orders indicating that the pro se documents

-3- J-S32037-25

would not be filed but would instead be forwarded to counsel, who had already

sought to withdraw his representation.

Given that Appellant promptly filed a request to submit a supplemental

brief to raise additional claims for this Court’s review and was entitled to do

so pursuant to Santiago, we grant Appellant 30 days from the filing date of

this decision to file a brief in the present appeal. Upon such filing, the

Commonwealth will have 30 days to file a responsive brief if it so chooses.

Appellant's pro se motion to file a supplemental brief is granted, such

that Appellant has 30 days from the filing date of this decision to file his brief.

The Commonwealth then will have 30 days to file a responsive brief.

Appellant’s “Motion to Compel” is denied.1 Panel jurisdiction retained.

1 Among his pro se filings on appeal, Appellant submitted a “Motion to Compel,” asking this Court to compel counsel to communicate with him regarding appellate strategy and status. We deny this motion as counsel has sought to withdraw his representation pursuant to Anders and has properly notified Appellant of his right to retain new counsel or to file a pro se brief to raise any additional issues Appellant believes are worthy of this Court’s attention.

-4-