Com. v. Williams, T.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 333 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S33015-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TERRIS TYREAK WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 333 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001885-2023

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 01, 2024

Appellant, Terris Tyreak Williams, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on January 24, 2024. On this direct appeal, Appellant's

counsel filed a petition for leave to withdraw and an accompanying brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth

v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We conclude that Appellant’s counsel

has complied with the procedural requirements necessary to withdraw.

Moreover, after independently reviewing the record, we conclude that the

appeal is wholly frivolous. We, therefore, grant counsel’s petition to withdraw

and affirm the judgment of sentence.

On January 24, 2024, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to

promoting prostitution and criminal use of a communication facility.1 That ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5902(b)(3) and 7512(a), respectively. J-S33015-24

day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the negotiated term of 288

days to 23 months in jail, followed by five years of probation, for his

convictions. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Further, on this appeal,

Appellant’s counsel filed a petition for leave to withdraw and an Anders brief.

Before reviewing the merits of this appeal, this Court must first

determine whether counsel has fulfilled the necessary procedural

requirements for withdrawing as counsel. Commonwealth v. Miller, 715

A.2d 1203, 1207 (Pa. Super. 1998).

To withdraw under Anders, counsel must satisfy certain technical

requirements. First, counsel must “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.” Miller, 715 A.2d at 1207.

Second, counsel must file an Anders brief, in which counsel:

(1) provide[s] a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer[s] to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set[s] forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state[s] 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.

Finally, counsel must furnish a copy of the Anders brief to his or her

client and advise the client “of [the client’s] right to retain new counsel,

-2- J-S33015-24

proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court’s attention.”

Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007).

If counsel meets all of the above obligations, “it then becomes the

responsibility of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the

proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal

is in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5; see also

Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en

banc) (holding that the Anders procedure requires this Court to review “the

entire record with consideration first of the issues raised by counsel. . . .

[T]his review does not require this Court to act as counsel or otherwise

advocate on behalf of a party. Rather, it requires us only to conduct a review

of the record to ascertain if[,] on its face, there are non-frivolous issues that

counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated. We need not analyze those

issues of arguable merit; just identify them, deny the motion to withdraw, and

order counsel to analyze them”). It is only when all of the procedural and

substantive requirements are satisfied that counsel will be permitted to

withdraw.

In the case at bar, counsel complied with all of the above procedural

obligations. We must, therefore, review the entire record and analyze whether

this appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Our analysis begins with the claim

raised in the Anders brief:

Whether Appellant, having entered into a negotiated guilty plea, can challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence[?]

-3- J-S33015-24

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his negotiated

sentence. However, as this Court has held, a “challenge to the discretionary

aspects of [a] negotiated sentence [] is unreviewable.” Commonwealth v.

Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 784 (Pa. Super. 2015), citing Commonwealth v.

O'Malley, 957 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[o]ne who pleads guilty

and receives a negotiated sentence may not then seek discretionary review of

that sentence”). Indeed, we have found this precise issue wholly frivolous in

the Anders context. See O'Malley, 957 A.2d at 1267. Therefore, in

accordance with our precedent, Appellant's claim on appeal is frivolous.

We have independently considered the issue raised within Appellant's

brief and we have determined that the claim is frivolous. In addition, after an

independent review of the entire record, we see nothing that might arguably

support this appeal. The appeal is therefore wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we

grant counsel's petition for leave to withdraw and affirm Appellant's judgment

of sentence.

Petition for leave to withdraw appearance granted. Judgment of

sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

-4- J-S33015-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/01/2024

-5-