Com. v. Petrie, I.
This text of Com. v. Petrie, I. (Com. v. Petrie, I.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S35023-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : IAN BROWER PETRIE : : Appellant : No. 595 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 31, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000823-2023
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 4, 2025
Ian Brower Petrie (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed following his negotiated guilty plea to one count each of rape of a
child and indecent assault, and two counts each of sexual abuse of children.1
Appellant’s appointed counsel, William Bispels, Esquire (Attorney Bispels), has
filed in this Court a motion to withdraw as counsel and an accompanying brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 249 (Pa. 2009). We deny Attorney
Bispels’s motion to withdraw and direct him to take remedial action consistent
with this memorandum.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3126(a)(1), 6312(b). J-S35023-25
The underlying factual history is immaterial to our disposition.
Succinctly, on June 26, 2024, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to
the above-described offenses, arising from his creation of two videos depicting
his sexual contact with a child, who was four or five years old at the time.
After Appellant underwent an assessment by the Sexual Offender Assessment
Board, the trial court conducted a combined sexually violent predator (SVP)
and sentencing hearing on March 31, 2025. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court designated Appellant as an SVP, subject to lifetime registration
under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act. The trial court
also sentenced Appellant, pursuant to the plea agreement, to an aggregate
term of 14 to 35 years in prison.
Attorney Bispels filed a timely notice of appeal on Appellant’s behalf.
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Subsequently, on August 6, 2025, Attorney Bispels filed in this Court a motion
to withdraw as counsel and an accompanying Anders brief.
We address Attorney Bispels’s motion to withdraw before considering
the issues raised in the Anders brief. See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9
A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“When presented with an Anders brief, this
Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing
on the request to withdraw.” (citation omitted)). Counsel seeking to withdraw
from representation must
1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
-2- J-S35023-25
determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he … has the right to retain private counsel to raise additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s attention.
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en
banc). Pursuant to Santiago, counsel must also
(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.
Id. (citing Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361). Once counsel has complied with the
procedural requirements, we review the record and render an independent
judgment as to whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Commonwealth
v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).
Instantly, Attorney Bispels filed an Anders brief and a separate motion
to withdraw from representation. In his motion to withdraw, Attorney Bispels
stated he conducted a thorough review of the record and concluded
Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See Motion to Withdraw, 8/6/25. Attorney
Bispels included with his motion to withdraw a letter to Appellant, informing
Appellant of Attorney Bispels’s intent to withdraw and explaining Appellant’s
right to raise additional claims by proceeding pro se or retaining private
counsel. However, the proofs of service for the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw do not reflect that Attorney Bispels served a copy to Appellant.
-3- J-S35023-25
Furnishing copies of these documents is an essential requirement for
withdrawal under Anders. Without evidence of record that Attorney Bispels
served Appellant with the requisite documents, we cannot grant Attorney
Bispels’s motion to withdraw.
Moreover, the substance of the Anders brief is woefully deficient.
Attorney Bispels identifies a challenge to the evidence supporting Appellant’s
designation as an SVP. However, the argument section contains a single
paragraph and is completely devoid of citation to relevant legal authority. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing an appellate argument shall include “such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”). Attorney
Bispels fails to identify anything in the record that could arguably support
Appellant’s appeal. Instead, Attorney Bispels follows his fleeting argument for
Appellant with an explanation as to why a challenge to Appellant’s SVP
designation lacks merit.2 “Counsel 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); id. (observing that an Anders brief “does not
resemble a ‘no merit’ letter,” and must refer “to anything that might arguably
support the appeal….”); see also Commonwealth v. Nelson, 170 MDA
2025, 2025 WL 2320320 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished
2 This portion of the Anders brief, which is titled “Counsel’s Averment of No-
Merit,” is the only section of the brief that includes citations to the record.
-4- J-S35023-25
memorandum) (in an unrelated case, denying Attorney Bispels’s application
to withdraw and rejecting his Anders brief as deficient, where it failed to
include pertinent legal citations and advanced conclusory statements against
the appellant’s interest); Commonwealth v. Lenhardt, 71 MDA 2025, 2025
WL 2320443 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished memorandum)
(same).3 For these reasons as well, Attorney Bispels has failed to fulfill the
requirements of Anders and Santiago.
Accordingly, we deny Attorney Bispels’s motion to withdraw from
representation. We direct Attorney Bispels to file either a proper Anders brief
or an advocate’s brief. Moreover, if Attorney Bispels chooses to file a proper
Anders brief, he shall send copies of the new Anders brief, motion to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Petrie, I., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-petrie-i-pasuperct-2025.