J-S36033-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WAYNE ROBERT JOHNSON : : Appellant : No. 177 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002521-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 22, 2024
Appellant, Wayne Robert Johnson, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of 12 months’ probation, imposed after a jury convicted him of
obstruction of the administration of law (hereinafter, “obstruction”), 18
Pa.C.S. § 5101. On appeal, Appellant seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain his conviction. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel, Robert
M. Buttner, Esq., seeks to withdraw his representation of Appellant pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). After careful review, we affirm
Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The trial court presented a detailed summary of the facts of Appellant’s
case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/15/24, at 2-
7. Briefly, Appellant was arrested and charged with obstruction and
harassment after he refused to allow police officers to enter his home to J-S36033-24
conduct a welfare check on his 7-year-old daughter. Appellant proceeded to
a jury trial on September 18, 2023. At the close thereof, the jury acquitted
him of harassment, and convicted him of obstruction.
On November 7, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant to 12 months’
probation. Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which was denied.
He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and complied with the trial court’s
order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The court filed its Rule 1925(a)
opinion on April 15, 2024.
On July 19, 2024, Attorney Buttner filed with this Court a petition to
withdraw from representing Appellant. Counsel also filed an Anders brief,
discussing the following issue that Appellant seeks to raise on appeal:
1. Did the Commonwealth fail to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that … Appellant obstructed or impaired the administration of law or governmental function when the Commonwealth failed to establish the following:
a. that … Appellant knew the officers were at his residence to perform a welfare check and, therefore, failed to prove he acted intentionally;
b. that … Appellant possessed the intent to and undertook actions that constituted a substantial step in an attempt to obstruct or impair the officers from performing a governmental function or the administration of law;
c. that … Appellant possessed the intent to obstruct or impair officers from performing a governmental function or the administration of law;
d. that … Appellant affirmatively interfered with or impaired officers from performing a governmental function or carrying out the administration of law?
Anders Brief at 3.
-2- J-S36033-24
Attorney Buttner concludes that this issue is frivolous, and that
Appellant has no other, non-frivolous claims he could pursue herein.
Accordingly,
[t]his Court must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented by [the appellant]. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc).
Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements established by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief 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. Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007)….
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014). After
determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of Anders
and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of the record to
ascertain if there appear[s] on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that
-3- J-S36033-24
counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v.
Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).
In this case, Attorney Buttner’s Anders brief complies with the above-
stated requirements. Namely, he includes a summary of the relevant factual
and procedural history, he refers to portions of the record that could arguably
support Appellant’s claim, and he sets forth his conclusion that Appellant’s
appeal is frivolous. He also explains his reasons for reaching that
determination, and supports his rationale with citations to the record and
pertinent legal authority. Attorney Buttner also states in his petition to
withdraw that he has supplied Appellant with a copy of his Anders brief.
Additionally, counsel attached a letter he sent to Appellant to his petition to
withdraw, in which he informed Appellant of the rights enumerated in
Nischan. Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical requirements
for withdrawal. We will now independently review the record to determine if
Appellant’s issue is frivolous, and to ascertain if there are any other, non-
frivolous claims he could pursue on appeal.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction for obstruction. Initially, we observe that,
[w]hether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge presents a question of law. Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). Our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016). In conducting our inquiry, we examine[,]
-4- J-S36033-24
whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, [is] sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S36033-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : WAYNE ROBERT JOHNSON : : Appellant : No. 177 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002521-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 22, 2024
Appellant, Wayne Robert Johnson, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of 12 months’ probation, imposed after a jury convicted him of
obstruction of the administration of law (hereinafter, “obstruction”), 18
Pa.C.S. § 5101. On appeal, Appellant seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain his conviction. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel, Robert
M. Buttner, Esq., seeks to withdraw his representation of Appellant pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). After careful review, we affirm
Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
The trial court presented a detailed summary of the facts of Appellant’s
case, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/15/24, at 2-
7. Briefly, Appellant was arrested and charged with obstruction and
harassment after he refused to allow police officers to enter his home to J-S36033-24
conduct a welfare check on his 7-year-old daughter. Appellant proceeded to
a jury trial on September 18, 2023. At the close thereof, the jury acquitted
him of harassment, and convicted him of obstruction.
On November 7, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant to 12 months’
probation. Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which was denied.
He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and complied with the trial court’s
order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The court filed its Rule 1925(a)
opinion on April 15, 2024.
On July 19, 2024, Attorney Buttner filed with this Court a petition to
withdraw from representing Appellant. Counsel also filed an Anders brief,
discussing the following issue that Appellant seeks to raise on appeal:
1. Did the Commonwealth fail to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that … Appellant obstructed or impaired the administration of law or governmental function when the Commonwealth failed to establish the following:
a. that … Appellant knew the officers were at his residence to perform a welfare check and, therefore, failed to prove he acted intentionally;
b. that … Appellant possessed the intent to and undertook actions that constituted a substantial step in an attempt to obstruct or impair the officers from performing a governmental function or the administration of law;
c. that … Appellant possessed the intent to obstruct or impair officers from performing a governmental function or the administration of law;
d. that … Appellant affirmatively interfered with or impaired officers from performing a governmental function or carrying out the administration of law?
Anders Brief at 3.
-2- J-S36033-24
Attorney Buttner concludes that this issue is frivolous, and that
Appellant has no other, non-frivolous claims he could pursue herein.
Accordingly,
[t]his Court must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented by [the appellant]. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc).
Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements established by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief 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. Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007)….
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014). After
determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of Anders
and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of the record to
ascertain if there appear[s] on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that
-3- J-S36033-24
counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v.
Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).
In this case, Attorney Buttner’s Anders brief complies with the above-
stated requirements. Namely, he includes a summary of the relevant factual
and procedural history, he refers to portions of the record that could arguably
support Appellant’s claim, and he sets forth his conclusion that Appellant’s
appeal is frivolous. He also explains his reasons for reaching that
determination, and supports his rationale with citations to the record and
pertinent legal authority. Attorney Buttner also states in his petition to
withdraw that he has supplied Appellant with a copy of his Anders brief.
Additionally, counsel attached a letter he sent to Appellant to his petition to
withdraw, in which he informed Appellant of the rights enumerated in
Nischan. Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical requirements
for withdrawal. We will now independently review the record to determine if
Appellant’s issue is frivolous, and to ascertain if there are any other, non-
frivolous claims he could pursue on appeal.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction for obstruction. Initially, we observe that,
[w]hether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge presents a question of law. Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). Our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016). In conducting our inquiry, we examine[,]
-4- J-S36033-24
whether the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, [is] sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Additionally, the evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. When evaluating the credibility and weight of the evidence, the fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. For purposes of our review under these principles, we must review the entire record and consider all of the evidence introduced.
Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Rojas-Rolon, 256 A.3d 432, 436 (Pa. Super.
2021), appeal denied, 285 A.3d 879 (Pa. 2022).
Presently, in assessing Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we have reviewed the certified record, the Anders brief submitted
by Attorney Buttner, and the applicable law.1 Additionally, we have examined
the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph F. Sklarosky, Jr., of the
Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. We conclude that Judge
Sklarosky’s comprehensive opinion accurately disposes of the issue presented
by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Sklarosky’s opinion as our own in
____________________________________________
1 On August 19, 2024, the Commonwealth filed a letter with this Court notifying us that it would not be filing a brief in this case, as it agrees with Attorney Buttner’s conclusion that Appellant’s claim is frivolous, and that he has no other, non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
-5- J-S36033-24
agreeing with Attorney Buttner that Appellant’s claim is frivolous.
Additionally, our independent review of the record reveals no other, non-
frivolous claims that Appellant could assert herein. Thus, we affirm Appellant’s
judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth in Judge Sklarosky’s opinion,
and grant Attorney Buttner’s petition to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/22/2024
-6- J-S36033-24
-7- Circulated 09/17/2024 12:51 PM