Anders brief in Pennsylvania

2026Counsel states that he has made a conscientious examination of the record, determined that further pursuit of a direct appeal would be frivolous, and furnished a copy of the letter sent to Trusty advising him of his right to proceed pro se or raise additional issues in response to the brief. 5 See ____________________________________________ 5 Trusty has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. -4- Goodwin, supra. Additionally, counsel’s Anders brief complies with the requirements of Santiago.

2026“When 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.” Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2026Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, … 936 A.2d 40 ([Pa.] 2007).

2026Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, … 936 A.2d 40 ([Pa.] 2007).

2026Counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders brief to the client, and a letter that advises the client of the right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court’s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2026Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005), and its progeny, “[c]ounsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his [or her] client.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court set forth clear standards for the content of the Anders brief, requiring that the brief: (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.

2026The Anders brief must comply with the following requirements: (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. -3- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

2026“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2026“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2026See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa.Super. 2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). -3- Counsel must adhere to the following requirements to withdraw pursuant to the Anders procedure: 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 [Anders] brief to the [appellant]; and 3)

2026See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa.Super. 2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2026“This Court first considers the issues raised by counsel in the Anders brief and determines whether they are in fact frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Weitzel, 304 A.3d 1219, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1196-1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)). “[I]f the Court finds all of those issues frivolous, this Court conducts a review of the record to ascertain if, on its face, there are other issues of arguable merit overlooked by counsel.” Id.

2026“This Court first considers the issues raised by counsel in the Anders brief and determines whether they are in fact frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Weitzel, 304 A.3d 1219, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1196-1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)). “[I]f the Court finds all of those issues frivolous, this Court conducts a review of the record to ascertain if, on its face, there are other issues of arguable merit overlooked by counsel.” Id.

2026See Flowers, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2020) (when direct appeal counsel has filed Anders brief and is requesting permission to withdraw from representation, this Court may overlook certain procedural deficiencies in appellate court filings to ensure that Anders counsel has not overlooked non-frivolous issues).

2026See Flowers, supra. Attorney Bradley raises the following issue in his Anders brief: “Should appellate counsel be permitted to withdraw as counsel because any appellate issues in the instant case are frivolous?” Anders Brief, at 4 (full capitalization omitted).

2026The Anders brief also includes the trial court’s statement in lieu of opinion and counsel’s letter advising Appellant of his rights pursuant to Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2026Attorney Light attached a copy of this letter to brief as required by Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 749 (Pa. Super. 2005), which states that Attorney Light sent Appellant a copy of the Anders brief.2 Having concluded that Attorney Light complied with the procedural requirements, we now examine the Anders brief.

2026Williams, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011 (Pa.Super. 2020) (holding that appellant’s failure to identify which of his three murder convictions, or any particular elements thereof Commonwealth failed to establish, resulted in waiver; and mere filing of Anders brief and petition to withdraw will not serve to resuscitate claims that were already waived upon filing of notice of appeal); Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237 (Pa.Super. 2010) (reiterating that challenge to sufficiency of evidence must specify element or elements upon which evidence was - 30 - insufficient to preserve

2026See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” (citation omitted)).

2026In addition, court-appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw representation must: (1) notify the petitioner of the request to withdraw; (2) furnish 6 Where there is a constitutional right to counsel, court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw must submit a brief in accord with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), referred to as an Anders brief, that: (i) provides a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (ii) refers to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (iii) sets forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivo

2026If this Court determines the petitioner’s claims are without merit, counsel will be 2 Where there is a constitutional right to counsel, court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw must submit a brief in accord with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), referred to as an Anders brief, that: (i) provides a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (ii) refers to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (iii) sets forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (iv) states counsel’s reasons for concluding that th

2026See Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Where counsel files an Anders brief, this Court has reviewed the -7- matter even absent a separate [Rule] 2119(f) statement.”) (citations omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Where counsel files an Anders brief, this Court has reviewed the matter even absent a separate [Rule] 2119(f) statement.”) (citations omitted).

2026The record further reflects that ____________________________________________ Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted; emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753, 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“A brief that essentially argues for affirmance is unacceptable.” (citation omitted)); Smith, 700 A.2d at 1303 (“A brief pointing out the flaws in the issues presented is not the proper form of an Anders brief, as this approach operates to deny a defendant the assistance of counsel.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.” (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)).

2026See id. (“Therefore, when an appellant, either acting pro se or through private counsel, files a response to the Anders brief, our independent review is limited to those issues raised in the Anders brief.

2026In reviewing the Anders brief and Father’s pro se response, we are mindful that we are “limited to examining only those issues raised and developed in the brief.” Id.

2026Finally, counsel must furnish a copy of the Anders brief to his or her client and advise the client “of [the client's] right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court's attention.” Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2026Finally, counsel must furnish a copy of the Anders brief to his or her client and advise the client “of [the client's] right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points worthy of this Court's attention.” Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). -3- If counsel meets all of the above obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5; see also Comm

2026Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 951 A.2d 379, 382 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). (“When faced with a -4- purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of any possible underlying issues without first examining counsel’s request to withdraw.”).

2024“When 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.” Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 951 A.2d 379, 382 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that where counsel files an Anders brief, this Court will review discretionary sentencing claim despite the failure to raise a substantial question to determine whether counsel is entitled to withdraw).

2026However, “[w]here counsel files an Anders brief, this Court has reviewed the matter even absent a separate [Rule] 2119(f) statement.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citing Commonwealth v. Wilson, 578 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 1990); see also Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995 (Pa. Super. 2009)).

2024See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (“Absent [a challenge raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting it to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings], an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.”); see also Commonwealth v. Cox, 231 A.3d 1011, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining that precedent does not permit “this Court to address issues that were not properly preserved in the trial court” and “the mere filing of an Anders brief and petition to withdraw will not serve to resuscitate claims that were already waived upon

2023See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (noting, where direct appeal counsel filed an Anders brief, that “Absent [a timely post-sentence motion or claim raised during -8- sentencing], an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.”).

2026Nevertheless, “[b]ecause an Anders brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.” Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 , 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). review, we grant Attorney Chavis’s application to withdraw and affirm the dismissal order albeit on different grounds as those relied upon by the PCRA court.

2026“Because an Anders brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.” Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 , 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2026Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa.Super. 2018). -7- We thus begin with Counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief.

2025Dempster, 187 A.3d at 271 . -6- Appellate counsel states in his application to withdraw that he has reviewed the record and could find no issues of merit to be raised in an appeal.2 His February 17, 2025 letter to Appellant provided a copy of the Anders brief and advised Appellant of his right either to retain new counsel or to proceed pro se on appeal and to raise any points he deems worthy of this Court’s attention.

2026Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).1 Our Supreme Court has further detailed counsel’s duties as follows: [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.

2026The record further reflects that ____________________________________________ Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted; emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Vilsaint, 893 A.2d 753, 758 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“A brief that essentially argues for affirmance is unacceptable.” (citation omitted)); Smith, 700 A.2d at 1303 (“A brief pointing out the flaws in the issues presented is not the proper form of an Anders brief, as this approach operates to deny a defendant the assistance of counsel.”).

2026In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 907 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also X.J., 105 A.3d at 4 (explaining that under Anders, counsel must send their client a letter which advises the client of his or her right to “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court’s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief” (citations omitted and some formatting altered)).

2026In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). -4- 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 Anders brief to the appellant; and 3) advise the appellant that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional arguments that the appellant deems worthy of the court’s attention.

2025See Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 800 (Pa. Super. 2013); Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw”).

2025See Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 800 (Pa. Super. -2- 2013); Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw”).

2026Petition to Withdraw Counsel seeking to withdraw as appointed counsel must conduct a zealous review of the case and submit a no-merit letter to this Court detailing the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues the petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (Pa. 1988); Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 24-26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc); Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. 3 Where there is a constitut

2026A Turner letter must detail “the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues which the petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting Turner, 544 A.2d at 928 , stating that counsel’s letter must detail “the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review and list[] each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s exp

2026While counsel seeking to withdraw from PCRA representation should proceed under the dictates of Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), this Court may accept an Anders brief because it provides greater protections to the defendant.

2026A Turner letter must detail “the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues which the petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 977 A.2d 19, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting Turner, 544 A.2d at 928 , stating that counsel’s letter must detail “the nature and extent of [counsel’s] review and list[] each issue the petitioner wished to have raised, with counsel’s exp

2020But see Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 ____________________________________________ 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). -8- (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 691 , 882 A.2d 477 (2005) (stating Superior Court will accept Anders brief in lieu of Turner/Finley no-merit letter, where counsel seeks to withdraw on PCRA appeal).3 “Before an attorney can be permitted to withdraw from representing a petitioner under the PCRA, Pennsylvania law requires counsel to file and obtain approval of a ‘no-merit’ letter pursuant to the mandates

2019But see 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 letter, where PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw on PCRA appeal).

2019Once counsel has met his obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility of the reviewing court to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.” Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5, quoting Commonwealth v. 6We note that counsel did not attach a copy of the letter to appellant informing him of his right to either privately retain counsel or proceed pro se to his Anders brief.

2018Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. -3- J-S05035-18 Based upon our examination of counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief, we conclude that counsel has complied substantially with the technical requirements set forth above.1 Therefore, we now have the responsibility “‘to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly frivolous.’” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1249 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Santiago, 978 A.2d at 354 n. 5).

2022See id. at 26 n.4 (stating, “we will not deny an application to withdraw simply because an attorney has filed an Anders brief where a no-merit letter would suffice”); Seilhamer v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 996 A.2d 40, 42-43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (noting Court may accept an Anders brief when a Turner/Finley letter would suffice).

2022Despite Kennedy’s argument to the contrary, the Board has discretion to award a convicted parole violator credit for the time spent at liberty on parole, except where he or she is recommitted for the reasons stated in Section 6138(a)(2.1)(i) of the Prisons and Parole Code, 61 Pa.C.S. § 6138(a)(2.1)(i), which 6 Where, as here, “an Anders brief is filed when a no-merit letter would suffice, the Anders brief must at least contain the same information that is required to be included in a no-merit letter.” Seilhamer, 996 A.2d at 42-43 . 5 does not apply here.7 Further, the Board must articulate the