Opinion
J-S12034-19 No. 1447 MDA 2018
04-29-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE JOSEPH SALATA, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 9, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0001148-2017 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
George Joseph Salata ("Salata") appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his conviction of two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of criminal attempt (homicide). Counsel for Salata has filed a Petition to Withdraw from representation and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). We grant counsel's Petition to Withdraw and affirm Salata's judgment of sentence.
During the evening of January 23, 2017, Salata and Michael Gontz ("Gontz") exchanged hostile text messages, while Gontz was in a bar in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. Salata threatened Gontz and Gontz's son in the text messages. Salata indicated that he was on his way to the bar. However, Gontz subsequently left the bar to look for Salata. According to Gontz,
I got as far as the corner of where [Salata's] house is and stood out in the street, and I realized [that] he wasn't coming out[,] so I had decided, I remember making a decision to turn around and just go home. But I heard something from behind me and turned my head to look and that's when I got shot.N.T., 2/12/18, at 66. As a result of being shot in the head, Gontz suffered serious and permanent injuries, including the loss of hearing in one ear.
Dominick Fornato ("Fornato"), a code and safety enforcement officer for the City of Hazelton, heard the gunshot while he was working on Locust Street. Upon Fornato's arrival at the scene, he observed Gontz in the middle of 20thStreet, on his hands and knees, bleeding from the right side of his face. Fornato observed a large pool of blood on the ground near Gontz, with some footprints "around the victim." Id. at 29. Karen Cundro ("Cundro"), a nearby resident, awakened after hearing a loud bang. She looked outside and observed a man lying on the street, face down, and another man standing nearby. According to Cundro, the man who was standing turned and walked away from the scene. Another nearby resident, Yamira Feliz, heard a loud boom that same evening, after which she observed Salata in his back yard, carrying a shotgun.
Following a jury trial, Salata was convicted of the above-described charges. For his conviction of criminal attempt, the trial court sentenced Salata to a standard-range prison term of 240-480 months in prison. For his conviction of aggravated assault, the trial court sentenced Salata to a concurrent, standard-range prison term of 48-96 months. Salata filed post-sentence Motions, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Salata filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
Salata's remaining aggravated assault conviction merged at sentencing.
We may not address the merits of issues raised on appeal without first reviewing the request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Rojas , 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005). Therefore, we review counsel's Petition to Withdraw at the outset. Our Supreme Court's decision in Santiago did not alter the procedural requirements counsel must satisfy in requesting to withdraw from representation. Counsel must (1) 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; (2) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant; and (3) advise the defendant that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court's attention. Commonwealth v. Lilley , 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Here, counsel's Petition to Withdraw states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Additionally, counsel notified Salata that he was seeking permission to withdraw, furnished Salata with copies of the Petition to Withdraw and Anders brief, and advised Salata of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se to raise any points he believes worthy of this Court's attention. Accordingly, counsel has satisfied the procedural requirements of Anders.
Salata has not filed any supplemental materials with this Court.
Having concluded that counsel has complied with the procedural mandates of Anders , we next determine whether counsel's Anders brief meets the substantive dictates of Santiago. According to Santiago , in the Anders brief that accompanies the petition to withdraw, counsel 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.Santiago , 978 A.2d at 361.
Here, counsel's Anders brief sets forth the factual and procedural history of the case. Additionally, counsel refers to issues that could arguably support the appeal, and concludes that the issues are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, counsel has complied with the minimum requirements of Anders/Santiago.
In the Anders brief, counsel identifies the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the Commonwealth proved by sufficient evidence that [Salata] committed the crimes of [a]ggravated [a]ssault and [c]riminal [attempt]-[c]riminal [h]omicide[?]
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing [Salata?]Anders Brief at 1.
Salata first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. See Anders Brief at 6. Specifically, Salata asserts that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he, in fact, was the assailant. Id. Salata further asserts that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions. Id. at 6-7.
In its Opinion, the trial court deemed the issue waived based upon the lack of specificity in Salata's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/18, at 2 (unnumbered). The trial court further reviewed the applicable law and the evidence presented at trial, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Salata's convictions. See id. at 2-5. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, and affirm on this basis with regard to Salata's first claim. See id.
In his second claim, Salata challenges his sentences as excessive. See Brief for Appellant at 5. However, as the trial court observed in its Opinion, Salata's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement failed to specify "how, why or in what manner [the trial court] abused its discretion in sentencing [Salata]." Trial Court Opinion, 10/16/18, at 5. The trial court further addressed the merits of Salata's claim of an excessive sentence, and concluded that the claim lacks merit. See id. at 5-8. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as expressed in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis with regard to Salata's sentencing claim. See id.
We further agree with counsel's assessment that the claims lack merit, and our independent review confirms that the appeal is wholly frivolous. We therefore grant counsel's Petition to Withdraw, and affirm Salata's judgment of sentence.
Petition to Withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/29/2019
Image materials not available for display.