Com. v. Gilliam, N.

Opinion

J-S05024-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NIKYLE GILLIAM : : Appellant : No. 212 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003680-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2025

Presently, Nikyle Gilliam (Appellant) filed an appeal from the judgment

of sentence entered following his nonjury convictions of sexual assault,

indecent assault, and indecent exposure.1 Appellant’s counsel, Jules N.

Szanto, Esquire (Counsel), has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and an

accompanying brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 283 U.S. 738

(1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 249 (Pa. 2009).

Previously, finding Counsel’s Anders brief deficient, we denied Counsel’s

petition to withdraw and remanded for Counsel to obtain relevant transcripts

and ensure they were made part of the certified record for appeal, and to file

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3124.1, 3126(a)(1), 3127. J-S05024-25

a proper Anders brief or advocate’s brief. See Commonwealth v. Gilliam,

212 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Feb. 28, 2025) (unpublished memorandum).

Counsel has complied with this Court’s directive to obtain the pertinent

notes of testimony and ensure they are part of the certified record. However,

we conclude the substance of Counsel’s Anders brief remains deficient. We

therefore deny Counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand with instructions.

Previously, we emphasized Counsel’s Anders brief failed to include a

separate discussion of Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his convictions. Counsel’s new Anders brief now includes the

appellate standard of review for sufficiency claims. See Anders Brief at 12-

13. However, Counsel’s discussion of this claim is limited to an assertion that

Appellant did not offer a contradictory version of events during trial. See id.

at 13; see also id. (Counsel acknowledging Appellant was able to cross

examine the complainant about alleged inconsistencies). Counsel thus

continues to conflate the distinct standards governing challenges to the weight

and sufficiency of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d

745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000) (discussing the distinctions between sufficiency and

weight claims).

Moreover, Counsel’s Anders brief fails to identify which convictions, and

which element(s) of those convictions, Appellant wishes to challenge. The

Anders brief fails to even set forth the elements of each offense for which

Appellant was convicted. Counsel fails to reference anything in the record

-2- J-S05024-25

that would arguably support the appeal, nor has Counsel made any attempt

to develop Appellant’s sufficiency challenge with citations to the record or

relevant case law. See Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361; Commonwealth v.

Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 901 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“As we have made plain, part

of the reason for requiring counsel to follow the structured protocol of Anders

is to eliminate speculation by this Court.”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)

(providing an appellate argument must include “such discussion and citations

of authorities as are deemed pertinent”).

Regarding Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim, the argument

section of Counsel’s Anders brief baldly references purported discrepancies

in the complainant’s testimony. Counsel fails to identify specific

inconsistencies or explain how those inconsistencies might arguably support

Appellant’s weight claim. See Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude Counsel’s Anders brief still fails

to meet the mandates of Santiago. Accordingly, we deny Counsel’s petition

to withdraw and remand for Counsel to comply with the requirements of

Santiago, or file an advocate’s brief with this Court. Counsel’s compliant

Anders brief or advocate’s brief shall be filed within 30 days of the date of

this judgment order.

Petition to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel

jurisdiction retained.

-3-