Anders brief in Pennsylvania

2026See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (stating that “[w]hen 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”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc) (stating that “[w]hen 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”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 179 , 978 A.2d 349, 361 (2009) (upon the filing of a petition to withdraw by counsel pursuant to Anders, “the defendant may also file a brief, proceeding pro se, to the extent that he has issues or other matters for the court to consider and/or a response to make to counsel's brief”). 2 Where an appellant does not file a response to an Anders brief, this Court conducts a simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that counsel may have been overlooked.

2026Our Supreme Court has set forth substantive requirements for counsel’s Anders brief, which 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 would arguably support 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.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 178-79 , 978 A.2d 349, 361 (2009)).

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, 594 Pa. 704 , 936 A.2d 40 (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).

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).

2026The brief must be accompanied by a letter that advises the client of the option 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 [this Court’s] attention in - 25 - J-S42013-25 addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Id.

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.” (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)).

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- J-S46014-25 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 [appella

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).

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). -7- J-S40010-25 received against the defendant considered; and the trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence when evaluating witness credibility.

2026Counsel is also required to file an Anders brief which 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. -2- J-S38002-25 Id. at 1196 (citation omitted).

2026Finally, counsel must “provide a copy of the Anders brief to the appellant and inform him of his right to proceed pro se or retain different counsel.” Id. at 1195-96 .

2026The Anders brief presents four issues for our review: A. Whether the sentences imposed are excessive, and contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process in this Commonwealth? ____________________________________________ 13 Counsel has attached to her application to withdraw a copy of the letter she sent to Appellant informing him of his rights, as required under Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005). - 11 - J-S45021-25 B.

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).

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)).

2025See 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).

2026MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2026 Anthony Joel Espinal appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on March 12, 2024, for his convictions of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance—fentanyl, two counts of possession of a controlled substance—fentanyl and cocaine, criminal mischief, and person not to possess a firearm.1 Espinal’s counsel has filed an application to withdraw as counsel along with a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), (“Anders brief”).

2026MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: FEBRUARY 17, 2026 J.A.F., Jr., (“Father”), appeals from the June 18, 2025 decree involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his biological daughter, Z.M.F., born in September of 2015.1 Father’s court-appointed counsel, Brandy Grace Hoke, Esquire (“Counsel”), has filed a petition to withdraw and an accompanying brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).2 Father, acting pro se, filed a response to the Anders brief in this Court.

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).

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)).

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)).

2026We do not act as, and are forbidden from acting as, appellant's counsel.”2 Id. ____________________________________________ 1 When Appellant submitted a pro se request to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, this Court mistakenly entered a per curiam order indicating this pro se request would not be filed but instead forwarded to counsel.

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). ____________________________________________ 4Appellant’s current counsel, Attorney Bispels, of the Berks County Public Defender’s Office, entered his appearance on Appellant’s behalf on April 29, 2025. -4- J-S42011-25 If counsel meets all of the above obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility of the re

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).

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).

2023“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).

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

2023Although Attorney Ingros did not state in either document that he made a “conscientious examination of the record,”6 ____________________________________________ 6 See Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1032 (citation omitted). -7- J-S33018-23 he stated in his motion to withdraw that he had reviewed all “documents of record” as well as his correspondence with Appellant, and stated in the Anders brief that he conducted a “thorough review of the record[.]” See Motion to Withdraw Appearance, 6/30/23, at ¶ 2; Anders Brief at 23.

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)).

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, “[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).

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- J-S32037-25 We thus begin with Counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief.

2025Dempster, 187 A.3d at 271 . -6- J-S21033-25 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.

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.”).

2025Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). -8- J-S01042-25 We note that counsel’s purported Anders brief appears to meet the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), although counsel’s analysis regarding anything in the record that may arguably support the appeal is sparse.

2025See In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders principles to appeals involving the termination of parental rights); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (providing counsel appointed to represent an indigent parent on appeal from a decree involuntarily terminating parental rights may petition this Court for leave to withdraw representation and submit an Anders brief).

2024Mother’s appeals from the termination and goal change are before this panel and docketed at 2414 EDA 2023 and 2415 EDA 2023. 3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the Anders procedure for withdrawal of court-appointed counsel has been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights). 4 We note that in the Anders brief, counsel explains seven of Child’s siblings are Father’s biological children; Father signed an acknowledgement of paternity as to the eighth child he and Mother share.

2026See In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. -4- J-A08044-26 2014) (stating “[w]hen counsel files an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits without first addressing counsel’s request to withdraw.”).

2026Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to the client, along with a letter that advises the client of the immediate right to either retain new appellate counsel or proceed pro se, and to “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.” In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and brackets omitted).

2026Turner, 544 A.2d at 928 ; Hughes, 977 A.2d at 27 . 1 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 the appeal is frivolous.

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

2026See In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. Super. 1992). -7- J-S44045-25 In this case, Counsel has filed an application to withdraw and an Anders brief, wherein she certifies that, following a conscientious and thorough review of relevant legal authority and the certified record, she believes Mother’s appeal is frivolous.

2025See In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa.Super. 1992) (extending the Anders procedure to appeals from involuntary termination decrees); In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa.Super. 2020) (“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.” (cleaned up)). -4- J-A19044-25 The following legal principles guide our review: Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to

2026On June 14, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of one count of stalking, one count of terroristic threats, and one count of harassment.2 On August 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant “to 12 to 24 months’ incarceration for the stalking conviction, a concurrent term of six to 12 months’ incarceration for the terroristic threats conviction, and a consecutive ____________________________________________ counsel's Anders brief instead of a Turner/Finley letter, “because an Anders brief provides greater protection to the defendant[.]” Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa. S

2025We, nevertheless, accept counsel’s Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter, “because an Anders brief provides greater protection to the defendant[.]” Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109 , 1111 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2004). -5- J-S37001-25 advising petitioner of the right to proceed pro se or by new counsel.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an accompanying Anders brief.1 ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 As this appeal is from the denial of post-conviction relief, counsel was required to comply with the less restrictive procedural requirements of Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

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