J-S26011-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NATHAN RYAN LENHARDT : : Appellant : No. 71 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 17, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002410-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: AUGUST 12, 2025
Nathan Ryan Lenhardt appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, following his convictions of
one count each of possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer’s number1
and carrying firearm without a license.2 Additionally, Lenhardt’s counsel,
William Bispels, Esquire, has filed an application to withdraw as counsel, and
an accompanying Anders3 brief. Upon review, we deny Attorney Bispels’
application to withdraw and direct him to file a compliant Anders brief or an
advocate’s brief.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2(a).
2 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).
3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). J-S26011-25
In light of our disposition, we need not set forth a lengthy factual history.
Briefly, at 10:22 a.m. on May 1, 2018, Officer Kyle Morgan of the Boyertown
Police Department was dispatched to 533 East 2nd Street, Boyertown, Berks
County, for a motorcycle parking complaint. Officer Morgan knew there had
been prior parking complaints and drug concerns in this area. Upon arrival,
Officer Morgan located the motorcycle, discovered that the motorcycle’s
vehicle identification number (VIN) did not match any vehicle and, specifically,
did not match the motorcycle. Officer Morgan believed that the motorcycle
had been stolen and watched the parking area for one hour. During this time,
Lenhardt exited a nearby building and approached the motorcycle. Officer
Morgan engaged him in conversation and learned that Lenhardt claimed to
have purchased the motorcycle but could not produce registration or insurance
information. Officer Morgan performed a pat down of Lenhardt and discovered
a firearm, which was later discovered to be a loaded Taurus .357 handgun.
The weapon was removed from Lenhardt’s person and discovered to have a
filed-off serial number. Lenhardt did not have a license for the firearm.
Ultimately, Lenhardt was informed of his Miranda4 rights and gave a
statement that he purchased the firearm in Stowe.
4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-2- J-S26011-25
Lenhardt was arrested and charged with the above-mentioned firearm
offenses. On September 10, 2018, Lenhardt filed an omnibus pre-trial motion5
that, relevantly, included a motion to suppress evidence alleging that Officer
Morgan lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down and, thus, the
firearm should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. On April
4, 2024,6 the trial court conducted a suppression hearing and, on May 22,
2024, denied Lenhardt’s motion to suppress.
On August 23, 2024, Lenhardt proceeded to a non-jury trial and was
convicted of the above-mentioned offenses. On December 17, 2024, the trial
court sentenced Lenhardt to 30 months’ to six years’ incarceration and a
concurrent 7-year period of probation. Lenhardt’s sentence was deferred
pending his appeal. Lenhardt did not file any post-sentence motions.
Lenhardt filed a timely notice of appeal and both Lenhardt and the trial
court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On May 13, 2025, Attorney Bispels
filed an Anders brief in this Court, and an accompanying application to
withdraw. Lenhardt has not retained alternate counsel or filed a pro se
response raising any additional issues.
5 The omnibus pre-trial motion also included a habeas corpus petition, which
the trial court granted on May 22, 2024, and dismissed a charge of person not to possess.
6 It is unclear to this Court why it took 6 years to schedule a pre-trial hearing
on Lenhardt’s omnibus pre-trial motion.
-3- J-S26011-25
Before addressing Lenhardt’s issues on appeal, we must determine
whether Attorney Bispels has complied with the dictates of Anders and its
progeny in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 986 A.2d 1241, 1244 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(“[w]hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the
merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw”). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes that an appeal is
frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he or she must:
(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention. The determination of whether the appeal is frivolous remains with the court.
Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citations omitted).
Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that a
proper Anders 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.
-4- J-S26011-25
After determining that counsel has satisfied the technical requirements
of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of
the record to ascertain if there appears 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, Attorney Bispels filed an Anders brief and a separate
application to withdraw from representation. Additionally, in his Anders brief,
Attorney Bispels stated he made a “thorough” review of the record and
concluded Lenhardt’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders Brief, at 17. Attorney
Bispels sent Lenhardt a letter informing him of Attorney Bispels’ intention to
withdraw, and advising him of his right to proceed pro se or retain alternate
counsel. The record reflects that Attorney Bispels furnished Lenhardt with
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S26011-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NATHAN RYAN LENHARDT : : Appellant : No. 71 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 17, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002410-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: AUGUST 12, 2025
Nathan Ryan Lenhardt appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, following his convictions of
one count each of possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer’s number1
and carrying firearm without a license.2 Additionally, Lenhardt’s counsel,
William Bispels, Esquire, has filed an application to withdraw as counsel, and
an accompanying Anders3 brief. Upon review, we deny Attorney Bispels’
application to withdraw and direct him to file a compliant Anders brief or an
advocate’s brief.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2(a).
2 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).
3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). J-S26011-25
In light of our disposition, we need not set forth a lengthy factual history.
Briefly, at 10:22 a.m. on May 1, 2018, Officer Kyle Morgan of the Boyertown
Police Department was dispatched to 533 East 2nd Street, Boyertown, Berks
County, for a motorcycle parking complaint. Officer Morgan knew there had
been prior parking complaints and drug concerns in this area. Upon arrival,
Officer Morgan located the motorcycle, discovered that the motorcycle’s
vehicle identification number (VIN) did not match any vehicle and, specifically,
did not match the motorcycle. Officer Morgan believed that the motorcycle
had been stolen and watched the parking area for one hour. During this time,
Lenhardt exited a nearby building and approached the motorcycle. Officer
Morgan engaged him in conversation and learned that Lenhardt claimed to
have purchased the motorcycle but could not produce registration or insurance
information. Officer Morgan performed a pat down of Lenhardt and discovered
a firearm, which was later discovered to be a loaded Taurus .357 handgun.
The weapon was removed from Lenhardt’s person and discovered to have a
filed-off serial number. Lenhardt did not have a license for the firearm.
Ultimately, Lenhardt was informed of his Miranda4 rights and gave a
statement that he purchased the firearm in Stowe.
4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-2- J-S26011-25
Lenhardt was arrested and charged with the above-mentioned firearm
offenses. On September 10, 2018, Lenhardt filed an omnibus pre-trial motion5
that, relevantly, included a motion to suppress evidence alleging that Officer
Morgan lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down and, thus, the
firearm should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. On April
4, 2024,6 the trial court conducted a suppression hearing and, on May 22,
2024, denied Lenhardt’s motion to suppress.
On August 23, 2024, Lenhardt proceeded to a non-jury trial and was
convicted of the above-mentioned offenses. On December 17, 2024, the trial
court sentenced Lenhardt to 30 months’ to six years’ incarceration and a
concurrent 7-year period of probation. Lenhardt’s sentence was deferred
pending his appeal. Lenhardt did not file any post-sentence motions.
Lenhardt filed a timely notice of appeal and both Lenhardt and the trial
court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On May 13, 2025, Attorney Bispels
filed an Anders brief in this Court, and an accompanying application to
withdraw. Lenhardt has not retained alternate counsel or filed a pro se
response raising any additional issues.
5 The omnibus pre-trial motion also included a habeas corpus petition, which
the trial court granted on May 22, 2024, and dismissed a charge of person not to possess.
6 It is unclear to this Court why it took 6 years to schedule a pre-trial hearing
on Lenhardt’s omnibus pre-trial motion.
-3- J-S26011-25
Before addressing Lenhardt’s issues on appeal, we must determine
whether Attorney Bispels has complied with the dictates of Anders and its
progeny in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 986 A.2d 1241, 1244 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(“[w]hen presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the
merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw”). Pursuant to Anders, when counsel believes that an appeal is
frivolous and wishes to withdraw from representation, he or she must:
(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit, and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention. The determination of whether the appeal is frivolous remains with the court.
Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citations omitted).
Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that a
proper Anders 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.
-4- J-S26011-25
After determining that counsel has satisfied the technical requirements
of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of
the record to ascertain if there appears 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, Attorney Bispels filed an Anders brief and a separate
application to withdraw from representation. Additionally, in his Anders brief,
Attorney Bispels stated he made a “thorough” review of the record and
concluded Lenhardt’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders Brief, at 17. Attorney
Bispels sent Lenhardt a letter informing him of Attorney Bispels’ intention to
withdraw, and advising him of his right to proceed pro se or retain alternate
counsel. The record reflects that Attorney Bispels furnished Lenhardt with
copies of the petition to withdraw and the Anders brief.
However, we conclude that the substance of Attorney Bispels’ Anders
brief is woefully deficient. The Anders brief summarizes the factual and
procedural history of this appeal and purportedly identifies a single
suppression issue, which was argued at length before the trial court. See
Anders Brief, at 9-12, 14-16. Despite this, Attorney Bispels’ “analysis” is a
single section spanning two pages. See Anders Brief, at 14-16. The brief
includes only a portion of a boilerplate standard of review, does not cite to our
standard of review, case law regarding the three types of police encounter, or
-5- J-S26011-25
explain anything that arguably supports his client’s claim that the trial court
erred in denying suppression. See id. Rather, Attorney Bispels’ entire brief
amounts to a conclusion that Lenhardt’s claim is frivolous because the trial
court found Officer Morgan credible. See id.
We cannot accept such a deficient Anders brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)
(argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent”); see also Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364,
379 (Pa. 2023) (“[M]ere issue spotting without sufficient analysis or legal
support precludes appellate review.”). Furthermore, “[c]ounsel may not file
a brief that argues against his client’s interest. A brief that essentially argues
for affirmance is unacceptable.” Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753,
758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted, emphasis added); see also
Commonwealth v. Smith, 324 A.3d 1241, n.2 (Pa. Super. 2024) (Table) (in
unrelated case, our Court denied Attorney Bispels’ application to withdraw and
rejected Attorney Bispels’ Anders brief for “effectively supporting the trial
court’s denial of the claim, as opposed to concluding that any challenge to the
court’s decision would be frivolous”); Commonwealth v. Boozer, 2019 WL
5655295, at *4 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum decision)
(“Although an appellant’s counsel is not required to advocate strongly in favor
-6- J-S26011-25
of issues he believes are frivolous, a brief that essentially argues for
affirmance is unacceptable.”) (cleaned up).7
Therefore, Attorney Bispels’ brief, which sets forth conclusory
statements against Lenhardt’s interest and otherwise provides no citations or
analysis, does not fulfill the substantive requirements of Anders and
Santiago. Accordingly, we direct Attorney Bispels to file either a proper
Anders brief or an advocate’s brief within 30 days from the date of this
memorandum. The Commonwealth shall have 30 days thereafter to file a
responsive brief.
Petition to withdraw denied. Panel Jurisdiction retained.
7 Boozer and Smith were filed after May 1, 2019, and, thus, may be cited for
persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
-7-