From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Shoup

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 21, 2020
No. 1373 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2020)

Opinion

J-S02022-20 No. 1373 MDA 2019

02-21-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. NATHANIEL ALBERT SHOUP Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0002303-2017 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KING, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:

Appellant, Nathaniel Albert Shoup, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for simple assault and disorderly conduct, and bench trial conviction for harassment. We affirm and grant counsel's petition to withdraw.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add that on October 30, 2019, counsel filed in this Court an application to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

The court ordered Appellant on June 24, 2019, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement on August 2, 2019. Nevertheless, this Court may address the merits of a criminal appeal, where a defendant files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement, if the trial court had adequate opportunity and chose to prepare an opinion addressing the issue(s) raised on appeal. Here, the trial court issued an opinion addressing Appellant's complaints. Therefore, we decline to consider Appellant's issues waived. See Commonwealth v. Burton , 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (allowing for immediate review under these circumstances).

As a preliminary matter, counsel seeks to withdraw representation under Anders and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349 (2009). Anders and Santiago require counsel to: (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 the 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 the appellant deems worthy of review. Santiago , supra at 173-79, 978 A.2d at 358-61. Substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks , 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa.Super. 2007). After establishing that counsel has met the antecedent requirements to withdraw, this Court makes an independent review of the record to confirm that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v. Palm , 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super. 2006). See also Commonwealth v. Dempster , 187 A.3d 266 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc).

In Santiago , supra , our Supreme Court addressed the briefing requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw representation:

Neither Anders nor [ Commonwealth v. McClendon , 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981)] requires that counsel's brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are references to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.


* * *

Under Anders , the right to counsel is vindicated by counsel's examination and assessment of the record and counsel's references to anything in the record that arguably supports the appeal.
Santiago , supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court held:
[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel's 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.
Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.

Instantly, appellate counsel has filed a petition to withdraw. The petition states counsel conducted a conscientious review of the record and determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel also supplied Appellant with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining Appellant's right to retain new counsel or to proceed on appeal pro se to raise any additional issues Appellant deems worthy of this Court's attention. In the Anders brief, counsel provides a summary of the history of this case. Counsel's argument refers to relevant law that might possibly support Appellant's issues. Counsel further states the reasons for counsel's conclusion that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, counsel has substantially complied with the technical requirements of Anders and Santiago.

Appellant has not responded to the Anders brief pro se or with newly-retained private counsel. Counsel raises the following issues on Appellant's behalf:

DID THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT [APPELLANT] OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT?

DID THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT [APPELLANT] OF SIMPLE ASSAULT?
( Anders Brief at 4).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P. Goodman, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 13, 2019, at 2-5) (finding: (1) Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence for jury to convict Appellant of disorderly conduct, where Appellant "slammed" Victim into front porch railing, chased Victim to her car, and banged on car's window until Victim called police; (2) photographs depicting Victim's injuries and testimony from Victim and witnesses provided ample evidence for jury to find Appellant guilty of simple assault). The record supports the court's decision. Following an independent review of the record, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Dempster , supra. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion and grant counsel's petition to withdraw.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Counsel's petition to withdraw is granted. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/21/2020

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Shoup

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 21, 2020
No. 1373 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Shoup

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. NATHANIEL ALBERT SHOUP Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 21, 2020

Citations

No. 1373 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2020)