Com. v. Brown, R.

J-S61019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ROBERT WAYNE BROWN, :
:
Appellant : No. 1296 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgement of Sentence Entered April 4, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0000029-2011 and
CP-21-CR-0003516-2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED DECEMBER 08, 2015
I join the Majority Memorandum, save for the manner in which it
disposes the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims. Majority Memorandum at
13-14. In my view, because Appellant’s counsel has deemed this appeal
frivolous and has sought to withdraw pursuant to Anders, we cannot simply
find that Appellant waived sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims due to Anders
counsel’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784, 787 (Pa. Super. 2001)
(concluding that Anders required the Court to examine the merits of
Hernandez’s issues despite his counsel’s failure to file a court ordered
1925(b) statement). Moreover, such a finding of waiver in an Anders case
seems to run contrary to this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S61019-15
Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2014), which held that, when counsel
complies with Anders, this Court must make an independent review of the
record to make certain that appointed counsel did not overlook the existence
of potentially non-frivolous issues.
In any event, for the reasons cited by the trial court in its opinion, Trial
Court Opinion, 1/7/2015, at 12-13, I believe any challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence would be frivolous in this case. Thus, I ultimately concur in
the result reached by the Majority.
-2-