Com. v. Miller, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 1576 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: McLaughlin

Opinion

J-S38002-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEVEN GIRARD MILLER, JR. : : Appellant : No. 1576 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001550-2023

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026

Steven Girard Miller, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

after he was convicted of open lewdness. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5901. Miller’s

counsel (“Counsel”) has filed an Anders brief1 and application to withdraw.

We affirm Miller’s judgment of sentence and grant Counsel’s application to

withdraw.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as

verdict-winner, the evidence at Miller’s non-jury trial establishes that he was

confronted by the father of his 14-year-old neighbor about something Miller

allegedly posted about the boy on social media. While the father was shouting

in the common hallway of their apartment building, Miller left his apartment

____________________________________________

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J-S38002-25

and entered the common area completely nude. He accused his neighbors of

being sex traffickers.

The court sentenced Miller to one year of probation and ordered him to

undergo a mental health evaluation and follow recommended treatment. The

court further ordered Miller to have no criminal contact with the victims while

they were living in the same building, and no contact with them thereafter.

Finally, as a condition of probation, the court ordered Miller not to post on

social media regarding the victims. Miller filed a post-sentence motion asking

only that the court shorten the duration of his probation. The court denied the

motion, and Miller timely appealed.

As stated above, counsel has filed an application to withdraw and an

Anders brief. Before we turn to the merits of Miller’s appeal, we must

determine the adequacy of Counsel’s request to withdraw. Commonwealth

v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1195 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc). Counsel

withdrawing pursuant to Anders “must file a petition to withdraw stating that

he or she has made a conscientious examination of the record and determined

that the appeal would be frivolous.” Id. Counsel is also required to file an

Anders brief which 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.

-2- J-S38002-25

Id. at 1196 (citation omitted). Finally, counsel must “provide a copy of the

Anders brief to the appellant and inform him of his right to proceed pro se or

retain different counsel.” Id. at 1195-96. If counsel has complied with these

requirements, we will conduct a “full examination of all the proceedings, to

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 1196 (citation omitted).

In her application to withdraw, Counsel represented that she “has made

a conscientious examination of the record in this case and has determined

that an appeal is wholly frivolous.” Application to Withdraw as Counsel, filed

8/18/25, at ¶ 1. Counsel also represented that she has communicated with

Miller “and has notified him in detail regarding counsel’s legal opinion

regarding the frivolity of pursuing this appeal.” Id. at ¶ 2. Counsel attached a

copy of the Anders brief. Id. at Exh. 1. In the Anders brief, Counsel

summarizes the factual and procedural history of the case, identifies a

potential issue, and explains counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel also attached a copy of the letter she sent to Miller, dated July 7,

2025. Id. at Exh. 3. In the letter, Counsel advised Miller of his right to retain

new counsel or act on his own behalf, and to raise any additional points or

arguments. The letter enclosed copies of the Anders Brief and application to

withdraw as counsel.

We find Counsel has satisfied the necessary requirements for an

application to withdraw, and turn to the merits of the appeal.

Counsel has identified one issue: “Did the court’s sentencing condition[,]

prohibiting [Miller] from posting on social media regarding victims[,] violate

-3- J-S38002-25

[Miller’s] rights pursuant to the First Amendment and Article I Section 7 of the

Pennsylvania Constitution?” Anders Br. at 3. Counsel states that an argument

could be made as to whether the court’s imposition of a restriction on Miller’s

speech was narrowly tailored. Id. at 17. Counsel concludes that the issue is

frivolous because there is no reasonable basis on which to argue that the

condition was unconstitutional.

The Commonwealth argues that the issue is waived. See

Commonwealth’s Br. at 6. Counsel concedes that Miller did not raise this issue

in the court below. See Anders Br. at 7.2

Generally, an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). This rule applies to constitutional claims, including First

Amendment claims. See Commonwealth v. Knox, 190 A.3d 1146, 1152 n.5

(Pa. 2018); Commonwealth v. Berrios, 297 A.3d 798, 805-06 (Pa.Super.

2023). Certain exceptions exist, such as challenges to the legality of the

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364, 376 (Pa. 2023).

No exception applies to the issue identified by Counsel. See Commonwealth

v. Prinkey, 277 A.3d 554, 562-63 (Pa. 2022) (explaining the four categories

of illegal sentencing claims); Commonwealth v. Sulpizio, 281 A.3d 352, 360

(Pa.Super. 2022) (imposing preservation requirement on claim that sentence

violated the First Amendment). As Miller did not raise this issue below, it is

2The trial court did not address the issue, because, in lieu of filing a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors, counsel filed a statement of intent to file an Anders brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4).

-4- J-S38002-25

waived. It is therefore frivolous for purposes of this appeal. We furthermore

perceive no reasonable basis on which to argue that the condition was

unconstitutional. See Sulpizio, 281 A.3d at 362-64.

Miller has not filed a response to Counsel’s petition to withdraw, either

through new counsel or by acting pro se, raising any additional points to

support his appeal. Our own review has disclosed no non-frivolous issues.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application to withdraw granted.

Date: 2/10/2026

-5-