Com. v. Goad, D. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • J-A07030-21
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    DAVID ALFONCE GOAD                         :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 633 MDA 2020
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 17, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-22-CR-0006149-2017
    BEFORE:      BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                 FILED APRIL 21, 2021
    Appellant, David Alfonce Goad, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
    entered on March 17, 2020, at the conclusion of his probation violation
    hearing. Relevant to our analysis, the court, after finding a technical probation
    violation, continued Appellant’s probation and installment payment plan rather
    than incarcerating him for his probation violation. With this appeal, Appellant’s
    counsel has filed a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel and an Anders1 Brief.
    After careful review, we affirm the Judgment of Sentence and grant counsel’s
    Petition to Withdraw.
    ____________________________________________
    *   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    J-A07030-21
    On April 3, 2018, Appellant pleaded guilty to retail theft. 2 The court
    sentenced him to two years’ probation and payment of $2,266.25 in fines and
    costs. The court placed Appellant on a $25-per-month installment payment
    plan. Appellant failed to make payments on multiple occasions, including from
    April to September 2019.
    On January 9, 2020, the Commonwealth initiated probation revocation
    proceedings due to Appellant’s missed payments. The court held a brief
    probation violation hearing on March 17, 2020. At the conclusion of the
    hearing, the court continued Appellant’s probation and $25-per-month
    installment payment plan.3
    Appellant pro se filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the
    resentencing court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On August 24, 2020, this
    Court issued an Order remanding Appellant’s case to the resentencing court
    to determine his eligibility for court-appointed counsel. The court appointed
    counsel on September 24, 2020. On December 15, 2020, counsel filed an
    Anders Brief and accompanying Application to Withdraw.
    As a preliminary matter, we address counsel’s request to withdraw. For
    counsel to withdraw, our Supreme Court has determined that, pursuant to
    Anders, counsel must meet the following requirements:
    ____________________________________________
    2   18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(4).
    3 The court ordered Appellant to report to the Monetary Compliance Unit to
    satisfy his obligations under the installment payment plan.
    -2-
    J-A07030-21
    (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).
    Counsel has fulfilled the above requirements. Additionally, counsel
    confirms that he sent Appellant a copy of the Anders Brief and Petition to
    Withdraw, as well as a letter explaining to Appellant that he has the right to
    retain new counsel, proceed pro se, or to raise any additional points. See
    Commonwealth v. Millisock, 
    873 A.2d 748
    , 751 (Pa. Super. 2005)
    (describing notice requirements).
    Having addressed counsel’s technical compliance with Anders, we will
    address the substantive issue counsel has raised. In addition, we must
    conduct “a simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear 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).
    Appellant’s counsel initially asserts that the resentencing court erred by
    not inquiring into the willfulness of Appellant’s failure to pay his fines. Anders
    Br. at 12-13. Counsel maintains that such a challenge would be frivolous,
    -3-
    J-A07030-21
    however, because the court continued Appellant’s probation rather than
    incarcerating him. 
    Id.
     After review, we agree that this issue is without merit.
    Before a court can revoke or increase conditions of probation, it must
    hold a hearing at which it considers “the record of the sentencing proceeding
    together with evidence of the conduct of the defendant while on probation.”
    42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(d). In the context of a technical violation for failure to pay
    fines, the court must find that the defendant willfully failed to pay before
    resentencing the defendant to incarceration. Commonwealth v. Eggers, 
    742 A.2d 174
    , 175 (Pa. Super. 1999). There is no such requirement, however,
    where the court does not revoke or increase the terms of the defendant’s
    probation.
    In the instant case, at Appellant’s violation hearing, the court, after
    finding a technical probation violation, continued Appellant’s probation and
    installment payment plan. N.T. Hearing, 3/17/20, at 2-3. It did not revoke or
    increase the conditions of Appellant’s probation. 
    Id.
     Therefore, the court was
    not required to find that Appellant willfully failed to pay. As a result, we agree
    with counsel that this issue is wholly frivolous.
    Additionally, following an independent review of the record, we discern
    no   arguably   meritorious    issues   that   warrant   further   consideration.
    -4-
    J-A07030-21
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s Application to Withdraw and affirm Appellant’s
    Judgment of Sentence.4
    Application to Withdraw granted; Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 04/21/2021
    ____________________________________________
    4 Notwithstanding our conclusion that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, we
    remind the court that it has not ruled on Appellant’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 706(D)
    Motions filed on July 31, 2019, and January 16, 2020. It is important that the
    court promptly resolve these Motions.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 633 MDA 2020

Filed Date: 4/21/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/21/2021