Com. v. Jackson, G.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 1810 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S40044-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY JACKSON : : Appellant : No. 1810 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000058-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 17, 2025

Gregory Jackson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered following his open nolo contendere plea to one count each of simple

assault (second-degree misdemeanor (M2)) and simple assault – mutual

combat (third-degree misdemeanor (M3)). Appellant’s counsel, Howard B.

Gold, Esquire (Counsel), has filed an application to withdraw from his

representation of Appellant, and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.

2009). After careful consideration, we grant Counsel’s application to withdraw

and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

The Commonwealth stated the factual basis for Appellant’s plea at the

June 11, 2024, plea hearing:

[For his M3 charge of simple assault,] the Commonwealth will prove that Appellant] was at Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, J-S40044-25

Pennsylvania, … on October [] 17th, 2021. [Appellant] did intentionally cause bodily injury … to [emergency services technician] Patrick Madigan [(Mr. Madigan),] while [Mr. Madigan] was [acting] in the performance of his duty[,] in that [Appellant] bit [Mr. Madigan] in the left … inner forearm while he was being treated. [For his M2 charge of simple assault], the Commonwealth will prove that … at Robert Packer Hospital[,] … on October 17th, 2021, [Appellant] did knowingly or recklessly get into a scuffle with Tim Shaw [(Mr. Shaw)] and that [Appellant] did … punch and spit [on] Mr. Shaw.

N.T., 6/11/24, at 3.

On November 4, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 3-12

months’ incarceration for his M2 simple assault conviction, and a consecutive

12 months’ probation for his M3 simple assault conviction. Appellant timely

filed a notice of appeal, after which the trial court appointed Counsel to

represent Appellant. Appellant and the trial court have complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Before addressing the issue raised by Appellant, we first address

Counsel’s application to withdraw. When faced with an Anders brief, we may

not review the merits of the underlying issues, or allow counsel to withdraw,

without first evaluating whether counsel has complied with all requirements

set forth in Anders and Santiago. Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d

1190, 1195 (Pa. Super. 2018).

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-S40044-25

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.

Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations

omitted).

Additionally,

the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s petition to withdraw ... 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. Substantial compliance with the Anders and

Santiago requirements is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Redmond, 273

A.3d 1247, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2022). If counsel has satisfied the above

requirements, it is then this Court’s duty to conduct its own review of the

record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that the

appellant could raise on appeal. Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d

266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

Our review confirms that Counsel has complied with the above-listed

requirements. Counsel filed an application to withdraw and an Anders brief,

concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Application to Withdraw,

7/28/25; Anders Brief at 16. Upon the direction of this Court, Counsel

provided this Court with the letter he sent to Appellant, informing Appellant

-3- J-S40044-25

of his intention to withdraw, advising Appellant of his right to proceed pro se

or to retain new counsel and raise any additional issues.1 See Letter, 7/29/25;

Letter, 9/24/25. Counsel additionally provided Appellant with a copy of the

Anders brief and Counsel’s application to withdraw.

In his Anders brief, Counsel provided a summary of the procedural

history and facts. Anders Brief at 8-9. Counsel states that he made a

thorough review of the record and found “no issue that merits appeal to this

Court[,]” and that the appeal is frivolous. Id. at 11, 18. Accordingly, we

conclude that Counsel has substantially complied with the procedural

requirements for withdrawing from representation. See Santiago, 978 A.2d

at 361; Woods, 939 A.2d at 898.

We thus turn our attention to the issue identified in the Anders brief:

Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in sentencing [] Appellant to a period of incarceration, specifically three to 12 months, when [] Appellant provided and argued mitigating factors?

Anders Brief at 7.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an

____________________________________________

1 Counsel has complied with this Court’s September 23, 2025, order requiring

Counsel to serve on Appellant “a letter advising him of his non-contingent right to proceed pro se or with privately retained counsel[.]” Order, 9/23/25. Counsel has filed with our Prothonotary seven copies of the letter, with proof of the letter’s service on Appellant. See Counsel’s Response, 8/8/25; Counsel’s Response, 9/26/25.

-4- J-S40044-25

appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987,

991 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted). “[A]n appellant challenging the

sentencing court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying

a four-part test.” Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super

2015).

We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether [A]ppellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [A]ppellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 532 (Pa. Super. 2011)).

Instantly, our review discloses that Appellant timely filed his notice of

appeal. However, Appellant failed to preserve his issue at sentencing or in a

post-sentence motion. For this reason, Appellant has failed to invoke this

court’s jurisdiction to review his discretionary sentencing challenge. See

Leatherby, 116 A.3d at 83. Thus, we agree with Counsel’s assessment that

the appeal is without merit and frivolous.

Although Appellant failed to preserve his sentencing challenge, we will

address Appellant’s challenge as part of our independent review for non-

frivolous issues. See Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272. The standard by which

we review discretionary sentencing challenges is as follows:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse

-5- J-S40044-25

of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Wallace, 244 A.3d 1261, 1278-79 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(citation and brackets omitted). Appellate courts may not reweigh the factors

considered by the trial court when imposing sentence. Commonwealth v.

Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126-27 (Pa. Super. 2021). Moreover, where the

sentencing court has the benefit of a presentence investigation report (PSI),

we presume that the judge was “aware of relevant information regarding the

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating

statutory factors.” Wallace, 244 A.3d at 1279 (citations and quotation marks

Appellant claims the trial court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs

and mitigating evidence when imposing its sentence. Anders Brief at 14.

However, our review of the record discloses that the sentencing court had the

benefit of a PSI. See N.T., 11/4/24, at 3 (wherein the trial court stated it

considered the PSI and the sentencing guidelines forms). Further, our review

of the notes of testimony from the sentencing hearing discloses that Counsel

detailed Appellant’s work history, his mental health and sobriety difficulties,

and his current mental health/sobriety treatment status. See id. at 6-8

(Counsel explaining Appellant’s mitigating sentencing factors), 8-10

(Appellant’s employer testifying about Appellant’s mental health

-6- J-S40044-25

improvements and that Appellant “is taking responsibility” for his actions); 11

(Appellant testifying that he did not recall the incident, “I just know I fell off

a bridge and I hit my head and I was knocked unconscious and I got to the

hospital and they medicated me immediately[,] and that like an hour and a

half later, they said I reacted and they put me in jail.”).

Upon consideration of the PSI, the guidelines, Appellant’s criminal

history, and the testimony, the trial court imposed an incarcerative sentence

in the bottom of the mitigated range of sentences. Even if Appellant had

preserved his sentencing challenge, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s

discretion in sentencing Appellant. Thus, we would again agree with Counsel

that the appeal lacks merit and is frivolous.

Finally, our independent review discloses no non-frivolous issues that

could be raised by Appellant. We therefore grant Counsel’s application to

withdraw, and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Application to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/17/2025

-7-