Com. v. Fagair, A.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 30, 2020
Docket2089 MDA 2019
StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Fagair, A. (Com. v. Fagair, A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. v. Fagair, A., (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

J-S34021-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ASHRAF HUSSAN FAGAIR : : Appellant : No. 2089 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 9, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001194-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

Ashraf Hussan Fagair (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence of 24 months’ probation, imposed after his guilty plea to one count

each of simple assault1 and criminal mischief.2 Counsel seeks permission to

withdraw from further representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

A.2d 738 (Pa. 1967). Upon review, we find that counsel’s Anders brief

satisfies the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Santiago, 98 A.2d

349 (Pa. 2009), and that there are no non-frivolous claims that Appellant can

raise herein. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm

the judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2). J-S34021-20

The trial court provided the following summary of the procedural history

in this matter:

This case involves [Appellant’s] appeal from a judgment of sentence entered on December 9, 2019[,] following his plea of guilty to one count of simple assault, a second degree misdemeanor, and one count of criminal mischief, a summary offense.[3] The [c]ourt sentenced in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement; [Appellant] was sentenced to twenty-four months of probation and ordered to pay restitution for the simple assault conviction, and an order of separate penalty was entered for the criminal mischief conviction. The remaining charge to the criminal information, summary harassment, was nol prossed.

TCO at 1.

Appellant filed a timely, pro se appeal on December 29, 2019, followed

by a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal. He now presents the following issue for our review,

via counsel’s Anders brief: “Was [Appellant’s] guilty plea valid and not

coerced by the prosecutor’s threats?” Anders Brief at 4.

3To be valid, a guilty plea must be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 522 (Pa. Super. 2003). The trial court noted:

[Appellant’s] answers to the questions posed to him during his on- record colloquy confirmed, inter alia, that he understood the charges to which he was pleading guilty, that a factual basis for his plea to the charges existed, that he understood a guilty plea must be entered voluntarily, and that he was entering his plea voluntarily. [Appellant] did not state that he had been unduly pressured or coerced into entering a plea as opposed to standing trial on the charges.

Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 1/21/20, at 2.

-2- J-S34021-20

“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review

the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to

withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super.

1997)).

Court-appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw from representing an appellant on direct appeal on the basis that the appeal is frivolous 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) file a brief referring to anything that arguably might support the appeal but which does not resemble a “no- merit” letter to amicus curiae brief; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the [appellant] and advise the [appellant] of his or her right to retain new counsel or raise any additional points that he or she deems worthy of the court’s attention.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 715 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation omitted).

Rojas, 874 A.2d at 639. Appellant’s counsel has complied with these

requirements. Counsel petitioned for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief

satisfying the requirements of Anders, as discussed, infra. Counsel also

provided a copy of the brief to Appellant, and submitted proof that he advised

Appellant of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se, and/or to raise

new points not addressed in the Anders brief.

Our Supreme Court has held, in addition, that counsel must explain the

reasons underlying his assessment of Appellant’s case and his conclusion that

-3- J-S34021-20

the claims are frivolous. Thus, counsel’s Anders brief must satisfy the

following criteria before we may consider the merits of the underlying appeal:

[W]e hold that in the Anders brief that accompanies court- appointed counsel’s petition to withdraw, counsel 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.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

Upon review of the Anders brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel, we

find it complies with the technical requirements of Santiago. Counsel’s

Anders brief (1) provides a summary of the procedural history and facts of

this case; (2) directs our attention, when applicable, to the portions of the

record that ostensibly supports Appellant’s claim of error; (3) concludes that

Appellant’s claim is frivolous; and (4) does so by citation to the record and

appropriate/applicable legal authorities. Thus, we now examine whether

Appellant’s claim is, indeed, frivolous. We also must “conduct a simple review

of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious

issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.”

Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en

banc).

Instantly, Appellant challenges the validity of his guilty plea.

Settled Pennsylvania law makes clear that by entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge on direct appeal

-4- J-S34021-20

all non[-]jurisdictional defects except the legality of the sentence and the validity of the plea. Commonwealth v. Pantalion, 957 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008)…. A defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i). Failure to employ either measure results in waiver. Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266, 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Pollard
832 A.2d 517 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
State v. Tibbetts
386 A.2d 736 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
Commonwealth v. Tareila
895 A.2d 1266 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Commonwealth v. Miller
715 A.2d 1203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Commonwealth v. Dempster
187 A.3d 266 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Smith
700 A.2d 1301 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Commonwealth v. Rojas
874 A.2d 638 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Commonwealth v. Pantalion
957 A.2d 1267 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Commonwealth v. Lincoln
72 A.3d 606 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Commonwealth v. Roberts
352 A.2d 140 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Com. v. Fagair, A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-fagair-a-pasuperct-2020.