Com. v. Carrington, A.

J-S54006-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
AKZAVIER ALI CARRINGTON
Appellant No. 397 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 31, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-44-CR-0000168-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. FILED AUGUST 28, 2014
Akzavier Ali Carrington appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County after a jury found
him guilty of two counts each of robbery1 and conspiracy,2 and one count
each of terroristic threats3 and theft by unlawful taking.4 Counsel has
petitioned this Court to withdraw his representation of Carrington pursuant
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(5).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a).
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1).
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a).
J-S54006-14
to Anders, McClendon and Santiago.5 Upon review, we remand for the
filing of a proper Anders brief.
In order to withdraw pursuant to Anders and McClendon, counsel
must: 1) petition the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a
thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded the issues to be raised
are wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that
might arguably support an appeal; and 3) furnish a copy of the brief to the
appellant and advise him of his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se
brief to raise any additional points that the appellant deems worthy of
review. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784, 786 (Pa. Super.
2001). In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, in order to withdraw under Anders,
counsel must also state his reasons
frivolous.
the record and concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel indicates
that he supplied Carrington with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining
____________________________________________
5
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); and Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
-2-
J-S54006-14
pro se,6 or with newly-retained counsel, and to
raise any other issues he believes might have merit. Counsel also has
submitted a brief in which he repeats his assertion that there are no non-
frivolous issues to be raised. However, counsel has failed to set forth, in
neutral form, any issues that might arguably support an appeal or explain
why, pursuant to the dictates of Santiago, he believes the appeal to be
entirely frivolous. Thus, counsel has not complied with the requirements of
Anders, McClendon and Santiago and his motion to withdraw cannot be
granted.
Accordingly, counsel is directed to submit a proper brief pursuant to
the dictates of Anders, McClendon and Santiago or, in the alternative, to
Panel jurisdiction retained.
____________________________________________
6
Carrington has not submitted any additional or supplemental filings to this
Court. Additionally, the Commonwealth has indicated that it will not be filing
a brief in this matter.
-3-