Finley brief in Pennsylvania

2023See Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 , 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating Anders provides higher protections than Turner/Finley, and thus a brief and petition that complies with Anders also complies with the Turner/Finley standard). - 10 - J-S39044-23 We surmise the following claims from Attorney Sullivan’s brief — that Trial Counsel failed to:10 (1) properly impeach Victim with prior inconsistent statements; (2) object to the chain of custody of the belt used to restrain Victim; (3) object to “prejudicial incendiary comments” in the Commonwealth’s closing argument; (4) present a defense a

2023See id. -4- J-S44029-22 Turner/Finley brief and petition to withdraw.

2022Appellant alleged Attorney Moore rendered ineffective assistance of counsel based on this conflict of interest, which led Attorney Moore to file a Turner/Finley brief on appeal of ____________________________________________ 1On appeal, Attorney Moore filed a “no-merit” brief and asked to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super 1988).

2022Appellant alleged Attorney Moore rendered ineffective assistance of counsel based on this conflict of interest, which led Attorney Moore to file a Turner/Finley brief on appeal of ____________________________________________ 1On appeal, Attorney Moore filed a “no-merit” brief and asked to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super 1988).

2023See Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691 , 882 A.2d 477 (2005) (stating Superior Court can accept Anders brief in lieu of Turner/Finley brief, where PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal). -3- J-S04027-23 privately retained counsel.

2023See Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691 , 882 A.2d 477 (2005) (stating Superior Court can accept Anders brief in lieu of Turner/Finley brief, where PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal). -3- J-S04027-23 privately retained counsel.

2024See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. In the Turner/Finley brief, appellate counsel initially contends that the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellant’s claims.

2023See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. We turn next to the issues raised in the Turner/Finley brief. ____________________________________________ 5 Counsel’s initial letter advising Appellant of his right to proceed pro se improperly framed his ability to respond as contingent on this Court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw.

2025Regarding Detective Hughes, Appellant relies on a conversation he had with an attorney, Michael Pileggi, who told him that Detective Hughes was being investigated and named as a defendant in federal civil lawsuits. -3- J-S40006-24 A Turner/Finley brief must: “(1) detail the nature and extent of counsel's review of the case; (2) list each issue the petitioner wishes to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for concluding that the petitioner's issues are meritless.” Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2024A Turner/Finley brief must: “(1) detail the nature and extent of counsel’s review of the case; (2) list each issue the petitioner wishes to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for concluding that the petitioner’s issues are meritless.” Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691 (Pa.Super. 2019).

2021Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa. Super. 2007). 11 In Muzzy, this Court reiterated that, “the [Turner/Finley no-merit] letter to the client, inter alia, shall inform the PCRA petitioner that upon the filing of counsel's petition to withdraw, the petitioner-appellant has the immediate right to proceed in the appeal pro se or through privately-retained counsel.” Muzzy, 141 A.3d at 512 . -8- J-A10027-21 The Turner/Finley brief raises the following issue for our review: “Is Appellant’s appeal without merit because his PCRA petition is untimely?” Turner/Finley Brief at 3.12 Preliminari

2019A Turner/Finley brief must detail “the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues which petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.” Id.

2023See Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691 , 882 A.2d 477 (2005) (stating Superior Court can accept Anders brief in lieu of Turner/Finley brief, where PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal). -3- J-S04027-23 privately retained counsel.

2023See Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691 , 882 A.2d 477 (2005) (stating Superior Court can accept Anders brief in lieu of Turner/Finley brief, where PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal). -3- J-S04027-23 privately retained counsel.

2022Doty, supra. On appeal, in the Turner/Finley brief, counsel sets forth the following issues: (1) Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition on ____________________________________________ 2 In the Turner/Finley brief, counsel indicated that Appellant could proceed pro se or with private counsel “[s]hould the Superior Court grant [counsel’s] Application to Withdraw[.]” Turner/Finley Brief, filed 8/30/22, at 5.

2020A Turner/Finley brief must detail “the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues which petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137 , 139 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2014) (some quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137, 141 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“Accordingly, we will proceed with our independent review of the questions presented to determine if counsel correctly concluded that the issues raised had no merit.”).

2015See Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super.2012) (reviewing PCRA Court’s grant of withdrawal and Turner/Finley analysis where appellant challenged it in opposition to notice of intent to dismiss).

2015See Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa.Super.2012) (reviewing PCRA Court’s grant of withdrawal and Turner/Finley analysis where appellant challenged it in opposition to notice of intent to dismiss).

2024See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. In the Turner/Finley brief, appellate counsel initially contends that the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellant’s claims.

2023See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. We turn next to the issues raised in the Turner/Finley brief. ____________________________________________ 5 Counsel’s initial letter advising Appellant of his right to proceed pro se improperly framed his ability to respond as contingent on this Court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw.

2024Before addressing the merits of the matters raised in Current Counsel’s Turner/Finley brief, we must first consider whether Current Counsel met the technical requirements for withdrawing from representation. ____________________________________________ 3 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623-624 (Pa. Super. 2016) (H.

2023See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016). -2- J-S18006-23 counsel’s Turner/Finley brief and application to withdraw.

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sauers, 159 A.3d 1 , 5 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2017). -6- J-S43034-22 to serve his separate sentence for his state parole violation.

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sauers, 159 A.3d 1 , 4 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2017). -6- J-S06020-23 Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

2022Appellant alleged Attorney Moore rendered ineffective assistance of counsel based on this conflict of interest, which led Attorney Moore to file a Turner/Finley brief on appeal of ____________________________________________ 1On appeal, Attorney Moore filed a “no-merit” brief and asked to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super 1988).

2022As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this Court and a Turner/Finley brief.2 Before counsel can be 2 See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (holding prosecutor’s challenge to potential jurors solely on basis of race violated Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Constitution). 3 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonweatith v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). -2?- J-A10042-22 permitted to withdraw from representing a petitioner under the PCRA, Pennsylvania law requires counse

2025We acknowledge the argument in counsel’s brief and consider it along with Appellant’s pro se arguments presented on appeal. - 10 - J-S01042-25 Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 954 (Pa. 2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023Appellant requested an extension of time to file a response to Counsel’s Turner/Finley brief, claiming Counsel was ineffective and “neglected to notify [Appellant] of his appointment to represent [Appellant] prior to filing a no merit Turner[/]Finley Brief….” Motion, 9/14/22, at 2 (unnumbered); see also id. (stating “Appellant respectfully asks to proceed pro se….”).

2024See Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 615 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2009Thus, in his petition for remand, counsel must: (1) “list each claim the petitioner wishes to have reviewed, and detail the nature and extent of counsel’s review of the merits of each of those claims[;]” and (2) “set forth ... an explanation of why the petitioner’s issues are meritless[.]” Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 615 (Pa.Super.2006). ¶ 7 Although we generally do not review pro se filings, we note that in his petition to remand, Appellant alleges counsel’s brief was incomplete, and therefore counsel was ineffective.

2023See Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that “[i]n a criminal case, the date of entry of an order is the date the clerk of courts enters the order on the docket, furnishes a copy of the order to the parties, and records the time and manner of notice on the docket” (citations omitted)); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c); Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1), (d)(1). -2- J-S43036-22 Attorney Patterson filed a Turner/Finley brief and a supplemental brief with the PCRA court on April 28, 2022.

2023See Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that “[i]n a criminal case, the date of entry of an order is the date the clerk of courts enters the order on the docket, furnishes a copy of the order to the parties, and records the time and manner of notice on the docket” (citations omitted)); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c); Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1), (d)(1). -2- J-S43035-22 Attorney Patterson filed a Turner/Finley brief and a supplemental brief with the PCRA court on April 28, 2022.

2023We have emphasized that Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). “[A]ny issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review.” Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 106 (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”)); see

2016See Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 278 (Pa. 2006); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). -4- J-S52023-16 Accordingly, we will address only the issue raised by PCRA counsel in her Turner/Finley brief.

2023Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 795, 797 (Pa.Super. 2008).

2017See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 795, 797 (Pa. Super. 2008). [I]ndependent review of the record by competent counsel is required before withdrawal is permitted.

2023See Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 5 While we express no opinion on whether the current brief meets the briefing requirements under Turner/Finley, we take this opportunity to remind counsel that a Turner/Finley brief must, inter alia, detail the nature and extent of counsel’s review of the case. -7- J-S45019-22 Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2020Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005) (counsel’s notice defective where counsel’s letter may have only informed appellant of right to “new counsel,” which would imply right to different court-appointed counsel, rather than right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se).3 We find that counsel failed to provide proper notice of Appellant’s right to proceed pro se.

2022Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (Pa. 2011) (“The PCRA court’s credibility determinations are binding on this Court when they are supported by the record.”). - 14 - J-S32028-22 We note that Appellant’s response to the Turney/Finley brief asserts that our remand decision had already decided that point in his favor.

2017Trial counsel’s decision not to object to a witness’ testimony cannot be the ground for a finding of ineffective assistance where it had “any reasonable basis.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1127 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). [W]e do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued[.] . . .

2018S07037/18 underlying claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014). “[C]ounsel is presumed to be effective and the burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on appellant.” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2011).

2017Briggs did not file a response. 5Counsel, while providing little discussion, did state that he agreed with the PCRA court that the PCRA petition was time barred because it was not filed within the 60 day limit. 6The Turner/Finley brief did not include a statement of issues presented, but did state: “The only issue raised in the Statement of Matters Complained Of is whether or not the lower court erred in finding that the 60 day limit found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) is jurisdictional in nature and accordingly a PCRA court cannot hear untimely petitions.” Turner/Finley Br. at 3. -4- J-S62029-17

2026Brown’s current counsel, Douglas Smith, Esquire (“Attorney Smith”) has filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw.2 Because Attorney Smith’s brief does not meet the threshold requirements for seeking withdrawal, we deny his petition to withdraw and direct him to file either a new petition to withdraw and a compliant Turner/Finley brief, or an advocate’s brief. ____________________________________________ 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2024Appellant’s counsel (Current Counsel) has filed a petition to withdraw and a Turner/Finley brief.2 For the reasons ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. 2 We note that Current Counsel mistakenly filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), which provide the procedure for counsel to withdraw in a direct appeal.

2017(Footnote Continued Next Page) - 11 - J-S63027-17 Because PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley “no-merit” letter and brief failed to comply with the requirements articulated in Freeland, 106 A.3d at 774-75 , we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and order counsel to submit either an advocate’s brief or a new Turner/Finley brief within thirty days of the date of this memorandum that fully complies with the requirements set forth in Freeland.

2015First, the Majority’s requirement that this Court comb the record in search of meritorious issues not raised by counsel in the Turner/Finley brief provides 2 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (granting a petition to withdraw filed pursuant to Turner/Finley, concluding that “[n]one of Appellant’s claims merit[s] relief,” and that “[o]n independent review, we find no other claims of merit”). -3- J-S61017-15 the same level of protection to PCRA petitioners as is provided to criminal defendants on direct appeal under Anders and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 3

2019In the PCRA appeal leading to the instant remand, we noted that the Butler Court concluded that because our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), that the registration requirements of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) are punitive, and an SVP designation increases the registration ____________________________________________ 8 Appellant’s pro se issues also relate to allegedly faulty argument by counsel in the Turner/Finley brief. -7- J-S48020-19 period, trial courts cannot apply SORNA’s increased registration requirement for SVPs

2017Adams filed two pro se responses. 4 In Adams’ second pro se response to the Turner/Finley brief, he claims that Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 , (Pa. 2017), grants this Court the “authority to invalidate his conviction.” Adams’ Resp., 8/16/17, at 2 (unpaginated).

2024Walters, 135 A.3d at 591 ; see also Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial compliance with the requirements to withdraw will satisfy the Turner/Finley criteria).

2017See Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589 (Pa.Super. 2016) (indicating that, when conducting ____________________________________________ 2 Appellant attached to her PCRA petition a notice of mailing from the prison dated March 23, 2016.