Com. v. Coffer, J.

J-S31041-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFERY COFFER :
:
Appellant : No. 52 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0001899-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFERY COFFER :
:
Appellant : No. 53 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0001900-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFERY ALAN COFFER :
:
Appellant : No. 54 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0001280-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S31041-19
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFERY ALAN COFFER :
:
Appellant : No. 55 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 20, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0001386-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
:
JEFFERY ALAN COFFER :
:
Appellant :
: No. 56 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-CR-0001466-2017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2019
Jeffery Alan Coffer appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on
September 12, 2017, following his guilty plea to numerous charges in five
separate cases.1 He received an aggregate sentence of six to twelve years of
____________________________________________
1Specifically, Coffer pled guilty to the following: Possession of a Controlled
Substance (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16)), Possession of Paraphernalia (35 P.S.
§ 780-113(a)(32)), Robbery-Threat of Serious Bodily Injury (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3701(a)(1)(ii)), Terroristic Threats (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1)), Theft by
Unlawful Taking (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a)), Receiving Stolen Property (18 Pa.
C.S.A. § 3925(a)), Recklessly Endangering Another Person (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
-2-
J-S31041-19
incarceration for the charges in all five cases. Coffer’s counsel has filed an
Anders2 brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel. We conclude that counsel
has failed to comply with the requirements of Anders and Santiago.
Therefore, we deny the petition to withdraw and remand for counsel to file
either a brief that satisfies all of the Anders/Santiago requirements or an
advocate’s brief.
We do not reach the merits of the appeal at this time because counsel
has not met the requirements pursuant to 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”).
In an 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.
____________________________________________
2705), Theft by Deception (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(3)), Forgery (18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(2)), Access Device Fraud (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(3)),
and Receives Advance Payment for Services (73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(2)). Trial
Court Opinion, filed on March 11, 2019, at 1-2.
2Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
-3-
J-S31041-19
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361 (emphasis added). The Santiago Court held that
“a discussion of counsel’s reasons for believing that the client’s appeal is
frivolous is mandatory and must be included in counsel’s brief.” Id. at 360.
Here, although Coffer’s counsel provided a summary of the procedural
facts and history of the case and presented two issues that he said arguably
supports the appeal, Coffer’s counsel did not state his reasons for concluding
that Coffer’s appeal is frivolous. Instead, counsel stated, in a conclusory
fashion and without any explanation, that the issues are meritless.
Specifically, counsel simply stated in his Anders brief:
After a thorough review and conscientious examination of
the record, consisting of a review of the official file, a reading
of the Notice of Appeal, research and review of the
applicable case law and statutes, the Petitioner has
determined that the Appellant’s Appeal is wholly frivolous.
Anders Br. at 24.
This Court has stated that the requirements for Anders briefs are
“stringent, and with good reason.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d
877, 881 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted). Indeed, a defendant has a
constitutional right to a direct appeal and a constitutional right to competent
counsel for his or her direct appeal. Id.
Our Supreme Court in Santiago explained why it is important for
counsel to articulate his or her reasons for concluding that an appeal is
frivolous:
We are persuaded that requiring counsel to articulate the
basis for his or her conclusion of frivolity will advance the
-4-
J-S31041-19
twin functions counsel’s Anders brief is to serve, i.e., it will
assist the intermediate appellate courts in determining
whether counsel has conducted a thorough and diligent
review of the case to discover appealable issues and
whether the appeal is indeed frivolous. In this context, we
believe that there is real value in putting pen to paper. As
the United States Supreme Court has noted, the task of
articulating reasons can shed new light on what may at first
appear to be an open-and-shut issue. It can also reveal to
counsel previously unrecognized aspects of the record or the
law and thereby provide a safeguard against a hastily-drawn
or mistaken conclusion of frivolity. In addition, we believe
that it is often the case that the basis for an attorney’s
opinion that an appeal is frivolous is not readily apparent,
and that accordingly, counsel’s explanation will significantly
assist the courts in passing upon the soundness of counsel’s
conclusion, which, in turn, vindicates the right to counsel.
Id. at 360-61 (citations omitted).
Instantly, since counsel did not set forth his reasons for concluding that
the appeal is frivolous, we conclude that his brief does not substantially comply
with the requirements of Anders and Santiago. Accordingly, we deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw, without prejudice, and remand for counsel to
file either a brief that satisfies all of the Anders/Santiago requirements or
an advocate’s brief, within sixty days of the date of this memorandum.
Petition to withdraw as counsel denied. Case remanded with direction
that counsel file either a fully compliant Anders/Santiago brief, or an
advocate’s brief, within sixty days of the date of this memorandum. Panel
jurisdiction retained.
-5-