Com. v. Williams, G.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 10, 2026
• Docket: 1284 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: McLaughlin

Opinion

J-S43025-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GAVIN ANTHONY WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1284 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0002229-2023

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

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

Gavin Anthony Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his convictions for firearms not to be carried without a license,

possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another

person.1 Williams’s counsel has filed an Anders2 brief and an application to

withdraw as counsel. Because the certified record lacks necessary transcripts,

we deny counsel’s application to withdraw and remand for further

proceedings.

After a jury trial, Williams was found guilty of the above offenses. He

was sentenced to 42 to 84 months’ incarceration on the firearms not to be

carried without a license count, and nine to 18 months each on the remaining

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1), 907(b), and 2705 respectively.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). J-S43025-25

counts, to be run concurrently. Williams filed a post-sentence motion, which

was denied on October 16, 2024. Approximately two months later, Williams

filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act petition. On April 14, 2025, the court

reinstated Williams’s direct appeal rights. This appeal followed.

Counsel’s Anders brief raises the following issues:

1. Whether there was insufficient evidence at trial that [Williams] was in the possession of a firearm such as to sustain a conviction for Firearm Not to be Carried Without a License, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1)?[]

2. Whether there was insufficient evidence at trial that [Williams] was in the possession of a firearm such as to sustain a conviction for Possession of Weapon, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907[b?]

3. Whether there was insufficient evidence at trial that [Williams] placed another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury such as to sustain a conviction for Recklessly Endangering Another Person, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705?

4. Whether a new trial must be granted because the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence?

5. Whether there are any other meritorious claims, issues, or arguments upon which [Williams] may file an appeal?

Anders Br. at 5.

We do not reach the merits of these claims because we determine that

counsel failed to satisfy the requirements of Anders. See Commonwealth

v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (stating that

“[w]hen faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the

merits of any possible underlying issues without first examining counsel’s

request to withdraw”). To withdraw pursuant to Anders, counsel must:

-2- J-S43025-25

1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or 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). In the Anders brief, counsel seeking to withdraw 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.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

If counsel does not fulfill the technical requirements of Anders, “this

Court will deny the petition to withdraw and remand the case with appropriate

instructions (e.g., directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an

advocate’s brief on [a]ppellant’s behalf).” Commonwealth v. Falcey, 310

A.3d 313, 314-15 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citation omitted). Further, it is well-

settled “that it is [the a]ppellant’s responsibility to supply this Court with a

complete record for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d

514, 525 (Pa.Super. 2007).

Here, in his Anders brief, counsel provided a summary of the procedural

history and facts of the case with citations to the record. Further, counsel’s

-3- J-S43025-25

brief includes several issues that could arguably support the appeal, and

counsel’s assessment of why those issues are frivolous, with citations to the

record and relevant legal authority. Additionally, counsel served Williams with

a copy of the Anders brief and advised him of his right to proceed pro se or

retain a private attorney to raise any additional points he deemed worthy of

this Court’s attention. Application to Withdraw, 9/19/25, at ¶ 4.

However, the certified record does not include the transcripts from

Williams’s trial. Although counsel cites to the trial transcripts in his Anders

brief (so presumably the notes of testimony have been transcribed), counsel

failed to ensure that the certified record contained the transcripts necessary

for this Court to conduct appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1921; Martz, 926

A.2d at 525. An attorney cannot satisfy the mandates of Anders when he fails

to procure transcripts for dispositive proceedings. See Commonwealth v.

Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2015). “When the record is

incomplete, we can neither confirm that counsel complied with the duty to

conscientiously examine the record, nor conduct our own review to confirm

the frivolity of the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Stroud, 298 A.3d 1152, 1158

(Pa.Super. 2023).

We therefore deny counsel’s application to withdraw and remand with

instructions for counsel to obtain the notes of testimony from Williams’s trial

held on May 23 and 24, 2024, and make certain they are part of the certified

record, no later than 30 days after the filing of this Memorandum. Following a

review of the complete record, and within 30 days of the filing of this

-4- J-S43025-25

memorandum, counsel shall file either a petition to withdraw and an Anders

brief, or an advocate’s brief.

Application to withdraw denied. Case remanded with instructions. Panel

jurisdiction retained.

Date: 3/10/2026

-5-