Santiago brief in Pennsylvania

2025Further, Appellant failed to present any issues of merit in his response to Counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief.11 For these reasons, we ____________________________________________ 10 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. 11 We reiterate that although this Court would typically conduct an independent review of the record for arguably meritorious issues, see Goodwin, 928 A.2d at 291 , because Appellant filed a response to the Anders/Santiago brief, “[this] Court is limited to examining only those issues raised and developed in the [response; w]e do not act as, and are forbidden from acting as, appellant's coun

2025Here, Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements for seeking withdrawal by filing a petition to withdraw; sending Appellant a letter that includes notice of Counsel’s intent to withdraw and explaining Appellant’s appellate rights, including the right to proceed pro se or with private counsel; and supplying Appellant with a copy of Counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief.5 See Goodwin, 928 A.2d at 290 .

2026Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2026Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 751 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2026(Appellate Counsel), filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders/Santiago brief.2 After careful review, we grant Appellate Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 4910(1), respectively. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2025See Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361 . ____________________________________________ 5 Appellant responded to Counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief by stating that the “arguments [in the brief] were not mine[]” and that Appellant is indigent and cannot afford to hire private counsel, nor does he have the knowledge to represent himself pro se.

2026See In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2026X.J., 105 A.3d at 3-4 (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing that unpublished non-precedential decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value). -6- J-S36016-25 Here, Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements by filing a petition to withdraw, sending Mother a letter explaining her appellate rights, informing Mother of her right to obtain new counsel or proceed pro se to raise any additional arguments before this Court, and supplying Mother with a copy of the Anders/Santiago

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 929 MDA 2020, 2021 -3- J-S06027- 23 WL 3163060 , at *3 (Pa. Super. filed July 27, 2021) (unpublished mem.) (addressing the merits of a late-filed Anders brief and petition to withdraw).3 “When faced with a purported Anders[/Santiago] 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).

2020Anders/Santiago Brief at 7.5 “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. ____________________________________________ 4 A copy of the letter is attached to counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief. 5 The Commonwealth did not file a brief. -3- J-S66017-19 Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

2025This includes “an independent review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non- frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). -5- J-S07005-25 Here, Appellant’s Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements for seeking withdrawal by filing a petition to withdraw, sending Appellant a letter explaining his appellate rights, informing Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or with private counsel, and su

2020Only after determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements, may this Court “conduct an independent review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). -4- J-S66017-19 Here, counsel has complied with the procedures for seeking withdrawal by filing a petition to withdraw, sending Appellant a letter explaining his appellate rights, and supplying Appe

2025This includes “an independent review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non- frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). -5- J-S07005-25 Here, Appellant’s Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements for seeking withdrawal by filing a petition to withdraw, sending Appellant a letter explaining his appellate rights, informing Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or with private counsel, and su

2020Only after determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements, may this Court “conduct an independent review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). -4- J-S66017-19 Here, counsel has complied with the procedures for seeking withdrawal by filing a petition to withdraw, sending Appellant a letter explaining his appellate rights, and supplying Appe

2026(Appellate Counsel), filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders/Santiago brief.2 After careful review, we grant Appellate Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), 4910(1), respectively. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2022For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss Appellant’s application to discontinue the appeal as moot, deny Counsel’s petition to withdraw, and direct Counsel to submit an amended Anders/Santiago brief or an advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf. ____________________________________________ 1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

2026See Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 889 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in an Anders/Santiago brief on direct appeal, which did not satisfy any exception to the general rule that such claims must await review under the PCRA, were frivolous); see also Commonwealth v. Wright, 2933 EDA 2024, 2025 WL 2105188 , at *5 (Pa. Super. filed Jul. 28, 2025) (unpublished mem.) (same); Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (noting that unpublished memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value). -6- J-S02005-26 of

2025See In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 766-67 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining that a party’s “failure to object [to an error] at trial constitutes a waiver of this ground for appeal[]” and that “[i]t is axiomatic that claims that were not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal” (citations omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 888 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted) (stating that, in the context of an Anders/Santiago brief, “[a]n issue that is waived is frivolous” (citation omitted)). - 18 -

2024However, this Court has explained that in cases where counsel has filed an Anders/Santiago brief, we will review a discretionary sentencing claim “even absent a separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement” and “do not consider counsel's failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement as precluding review of whether [the a]ppellant's issue is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that the appellant's failure to file a separate Rule 2119 statement where counsel has sought to withdraw does not

2024For purposes of our review, we accept that Appellant has met the first three requirements of the above test.7 Therefore, we must determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question. ____________________________________________ 7 This Court has explained that in cases where counsel has filed an Anders/Santiago brief, we will review a discretionary sentencing claim “even absent a separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement” and “do not consider counsel’s failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement as precluding review of whether [the a]ppellant’s issue is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 1

2022See Proctor, 156 A.3d at 273 .

2022See id.

2024See id.

2023See id.

2025Further, Appellant failed to present any issues of merit in his response to Counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief.11 For these reasons, we ____________________________________________ 10 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. 11 We reiterate that although this Court would typically conduct an independent review of the record for arguably meritorious issues, see Goodwin, 928 A.2d at 291 , because Appellant filed a response to the Anders/Santiago brief, “[this] Court is limited to examining only those issues raised and developed in the [response; w]e do not act as, and are forbidden from acting as, appellant's coun

2019Although there is no indication that Appellant considered his pro se application a response to counsel’s Anders/Santiago brief, to the extent it could be construed as such, see generally Commonwealth v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327, 333-34 (Pa. Super. 2015), it reiterates the issues raised in the Anders brief, which we have held are frivolous.

2024However, this Court has explained that in cases where counsel has filed an Anders/Santiago brief, we will review a discretionary sentencing claim “even absent a separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement” and “do not consider counsel's failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement as precluding review of whether [the a]ppellant's issue is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that the appellant's failure to file a separate Rule 2119 statement where counsel has sought to withdraw does not

2024For purposes of our review, we accept that Appellant has met the first three requirements of the above test.7 Therefore, we must determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question. ____________________________________________ 7 This Court has explained that in cases where counsel has filed an Anders/Santiago brief, we will review a discretionary sentencing claim “even absent a separate Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement” and “do not consider counsel’s failure to submit a Rule 2119(f) statement as precluding review of whether [the a]ppellant’s issue is frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 1

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the Anders/Santiago procedure for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw has been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights).

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the Anders/Santiago procedure for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw has been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights).

2026See Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509, 511-12 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that, once counsel has petitioned to withdraw, an appellant has an immediate right to proceed pro se).

2022Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 , 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509 , 510 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the Anders/Santiago procedure for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw has been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights).

2025In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the Anders/Santiago procedure for court-appointed counsel seeking to withdraw has been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights).

2025Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (holding that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived” (citations omitted)).

2021See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that an appellant’s argument shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (stating that “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority[,] or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”).

2024See J.D.H., 171 A.3d at 908 ; X.J., 105 A.3d at 4 .

2021See J.D.H., 171 A.3d at 905 .

2019See Commonwealth v. Myers, 897 A.2d 493, 494-96 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. Super. 2006).] However, because a lawyer will not file an Anders/[McClendon] Santiago brief without concluding that there are no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal, this amendment allows a lawyer to file, in lieu of a Statement, a representation that no errors [have been raised] are asserted because the lawyer is (or intends to be) seeking to withdraw under Anders/[McClendon/]Santiago.

2019See Commonwealth v. Myers, 897 A.2d 493, 494-96 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. Super. 2006).] However, because a lawyer will not file an Anders/[McClendon] Santiago brief without concluding that there are no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal, this amendment allows a lawyer to file, in lieu of a Statement, a representation that no errors [have been raised] are asserted because the lawyer is (or intends to be) seeking to withdraw under Anders/[McClendon/]Santiago.

2019See Commonwealth v. Myers, 897 A.2d 493, 494-96 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. Super. 2006).] However, because a lawyer will not file an Anders/[McClendon] Santiago brief without concluding that there are no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal, this amendment allows a lawyer to file, in lieu of a Statement, a representation that no errors [have been raised] are asserted because the lawyer is (or intends to be) seeking to withdraw under Anders/[McClendon/]Santiago.

2019See Commonwealth v. Myers, 897 A.2d 493, 494-96 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Ladamus, 896 A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. Super. 2006).] However, because a lawyer will not file an Anders/[McClendon] Santiago brief without concluding that there are no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal, this amendment allows a lawyer to file, in lieu of a Statement, a representation that no errors [have been raised] are asserted because the lawyer is (or intends to be) seeking to withdraw under Anders/[McClendon/]Santiago.

2019See Crews , 445 U.S. at 472 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ("This is not to say that the intervening photographic and lineup identifications-both of which are conceded to be suppressible fruits of the Fourth Amendment violation-could not under some circumstances affect the reliability of the in-court identification and render it inadmissible as well.").

2019See Crews , 445 U.S. at 472 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 ("This is not to say that the intervening photographic and lineup identifications-both of which are conceded to be suppressible fruits of the Fourth Amendment violation-could not under some circumstances affect the reliability of the in-court identification and render it inadmissible as well.").

2021As this Court noted in Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010), Santiago altered the Anders requirements for withdrawal and requires that counsel “provide the reasons for concluding the appeal is frivolous.” Daniels, 999 A.2d at 593 .

2015Counsel also must provide a copy of the Anders/Santiago brief to his client with a letter that advises the client of his rights 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 -6- J-S73020-14 the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2007); see Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2020Counsel continues: Appellant stated that he understood the plea agreement, the charges he was pleading to, that he was doing this voluntarily of his own freewill, no one made any threats or promises to him, and he did not have any drugs or alcohol prior to him entering his nolo ____________________________________________ 10Although this Court may accept a petition to withdraw included within an Anders/Santiago brief, we remind Counsel that “the more desirable practice would be to submit a separate withdrawal request to the court . . . .” Commonwealth v. Fischetti, 669 A.2d 399, 400 (Pa. Super

2018As a panel of this Court explained in Commonwealth v. Fischetti, 669 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1995), -2- J-S32021-18 that he furnished to Appellant both the Anders/Santiago brief and a letter explaining her appellate rights.

2019When reviewing such an order, we “consider only the evidence of the defense and so much of the evidence for the Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the suppression hearing record as a whole,” and when “the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.” Commonwealth v. Lukach, 195 A.3d 176, 183 (Pa. 2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [J-93-2018] [MO: Todd, J.] - 10 such as lighting conditions, physical proximity between the witne

2019When reviewing such an order, we "consider only the evidence of the defense and so much of the evidence for the Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the suppression hearing record as a whole," and when "the record supports the suppression court's factual findings, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error." Commonwealth v. Lukach , --- Pa. ----, 195 A.3d 176 , 183 (2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).