Com. v. Santia, D.

301 A.3d 924
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 22, 2023·No. 972 WDA 2022·Unpublished

Opinion

J-S05008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID ANTHONY SANTIA JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 972 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0002926-2021,

CP-25-CR-0003000-2021, CP-25-CR-0003094-2021, CP-25-CR-0003095-2021, CP-25-CR-0003096-2021, CP-25-CR-0003195-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID A. SANTIA, JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 536 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0003000-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID SANTIA, JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 537 WDA 2023

J-S05008-23

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0003094-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID A. SANTIA, JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 538 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0003095-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID A. SANTIA, JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 539 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0003096-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

DAVID A. SANTIA, JR. :

:

Appellant : No. 540 WDA 2023

J-S05008-23

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):

CP-25-CR-0003195-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: JUNE 22, 2023

Appellant, David Anthony Santia, Jr., appeals nunc pro tunc from the

judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 31 to 62 months’ incarceration,

imposed after he pled guilty, in six separate cases, to theft by deception, 18

Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1), forgery, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(1), deceptive or

fraudulent business practices, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4107(a)(2), and identity theft, 18

Pa.C.S. § 4120(a). On appeal, Appellant seeks to challenge the discretionary

aspects of his sentence. Additionally, his counsel, Tina M. Fryling, Esq., has

petitioned to withdraw her 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.

At this juncture, we need not set forth the facts of Appellant’s underlying

convictions. We only note that he pled guilty to the above-stated offenses

and was sentenced to the aggregate term set forth supra on March 7, 2022.

He did not file any post-sentence motions or a direct appeal. On May 25,

2022, Appellant filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, seeking the reinstatement of his direct

appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On August 9, 2022, the court issued an order

J-S05008-23

granting that petition and stating that Appellant could file notices of appeal,

nunc pro tunc, from his judgment of sentence. The order did not reinstate

Appellant’s right to file post-sentence motions.

On August 22, 2022, Appellant timely filed a single notice of appeal

listing all six docket numbers of his underlying cases, in violation of

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that the filing

of a single notice of appeal from an order involving more than one docket will

no longer be tolerated; such practice violates Pa.R.A.P. 341, which requires

the filing of separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on

more than one docket; and the failure to file separate appeals generally

requires the appellate court to quash). However, in Commonwealth v.

Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme Court expressly overruled the

pronouncement in Walker that the failure to file separate notices of appeal in

connection with issues arising at more than one docket necessarily requires

this Court to quash the appeal. The Young Court held that “where a timely

appeal is erroneously filed at only one docket, [Pa.R.A.P.] 902 permits the

appellate court, in its discretion, to allow correction of the error, where

appropriate.” Id. at 477.

Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.1 Accordingly, although

he failed to comply with Walker, we did not quash his appeal but, instead,

1 Appellant also timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 6, 2022.

J-S05008-23

we remanded for Appellant to file separate notices of appeal at each of the

docket numbers for his six underlying cases within fourteen days. Appellant

timely complied with our directive, and we have consolidated his six, separate

appeals herein.

Appellant seeks to raise the following sentencing claim for our review:

“Was the sentence in this case manifestly excessive and clearly unreasonable,

particularly in [the imposition of] consecutive[ terms], and not individualized

as required by law?” Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Attorney Fryling concludes that this issue is frivolous, and that Appellant

has no other, non-frivolous claims he could pursue herein. Accordingly,

this 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

J-S05008-23

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), appeal denied, … 936 A.2d 40 ([Pa.] 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

counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v.

Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

In this case, Attorney Fryling’s Anders brief complies with the above-

stated requirements. Namely, she includes a summary of the relevant factual

and procedural history, she refers to portions of the record that could arguably

support Appellant’s claims, and she sets forth her conclusion that Appellant’s

appeal is frivolous. She also explains her reasons for reaching that

determination, and supports her rationale with citations to the record and

pertinent legal authority. Attorney Fryling also states in her petition to

withdraw that she has supplied Appellant with a copy of her Anders brief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Com. v. Santia, D., 301 A.3d 924 (Pa. Ct. App. 2023).

301 A.3d 924 (Com. v. Santia, D.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Commonwealth v. Wright
832 A.2d 1104 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Commonwealth v. Nischan
928 A.2d 349 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Commonwealth v. McNabb
819 A.2d 54 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Commonwealth v. Dempster
187 A.3d 266 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Walker, T.
185 A.3d 969 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Conte
198 A.3d 1169 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Goodwin
928 A.2d 287 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Commonwealth v. Orellana
86 A.3d 877 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)