J-S59025-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LINDELL TATE
Appellant No. 3368 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003146-2011
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
Lindell Tate appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in the
robbery threat of immediate serious injury,1 receiving stolen property,2
firearms not to be carried without a license,3 possession of a weapon,4
recklessly endangering another person,5 theft by unlawful taking movable
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b).
5
18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.
J-S59025-14
property,6 and persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or
transfer firearms.7 Tat
dictates of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), and Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d
sentence based on the opinion of the Honorable Clyde W. Waite, and grant
On January 29, 2011, at approximately 6:05 p.m., Tate entered a 7-
Eleven store at Street Road and Windsor Street in Bensalem Township,
Bucks County. Tate pointed a handgun at the store clerk and demanded
money and cigarettes. The clerk gave Tate cigarettes and $635.00 in cash.
e, the store
clerk and another 7-Eleven employee called 911. The call resulted in a
police radio dispatch describing Tate and stating that he had run across
Officer Steven Bailey of the Bensalem Township Police responded to
Officer Bailey requested three times that Tate come out. Tate ignored these
____________________________________________
6
18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).
7
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
-2-
J-S59025-14
requests, and Officer Bailey entered the bathroom. Officer Bailey confronted
Tate in the bathroom and again asked him to leave, however, Tate refused.
The other officers then entered the bathroom, and following a brief struggle,
they detained and arrested Tate.
At the time of his arrest, Tate had $615.00 on his person.
using a $20 bill he had stolen from 7-Eleven. A search of the bathroom
revealed a black nine-millimeter Taurus handgun in the wastebasket. Later
Following his arrest, Bensalem Township Detective David Nieves
interviewed Tate. After obtaining identifying information, Detective Nieves
read Tate his Miranda8 warnings and Tate read and signed a card with the
warnings, indicating he understood each one. After first denying guilt, Tate
confessed to robbing the 7-Eleven. Tate later testified at the suppression
hearing that he was high during his interview; however, Detective Nieves
testified that Tate appeared normal, coherent, and understanding.
On August 19, 2011, Tate filed an omnibus pre-trial motion seeking to
suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to his arrest. Following a
suppression hearing on August 30, 2011, the court concluded that the police
____________________________________________
8
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-3-
J-S59025-14
had sufficient probable cause to arrest Tate immediately after the robbery
and denied his pre-trial motion.
On March 6, 2012, a one-day stipulated waiver trial occurred. At the
conclusion of trial, the court found Tate guilty on all counts. Sentencing was
deferred until May 3, 2012, at which the time the court sentenced Tate to an
Tate filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence on May 7, 2012,
which was denied by operation of law. On December 2, 2013, following
reinstatement of his right to appeal nunc pro tunc, Tate filed the instant
appeal.
As noted above, counsel has filed an Anders brief and a corresponding
rted Anders
brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without
Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874
A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, counsel must follow certain
mandates when seeking to withdraw pursuant to Anders, McClendon, and
Santiago. These mandates are not overly burdensome and have been
summarized as follows:
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 be wholly frivolous.
Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth issues that
might arguably support the appeal along with any other issues
necessary for the effective appellate presentation thereof.
Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders petition
and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the right to
-4-
J-S59025-14
retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points
If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical requirements of
Anders, this Court will deny the petition to withdraw and
remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g., directing
counsel either to comply with Anders
Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations
omitted).
Moreover, the Anders
withdraw 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
easons 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.
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.
Here, counsel filed a petition averring that, upon a thorough
examination of the record, he finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous, and
states his reasons for so concluding. Counsel also filed a brief that provides
udes citations to the record.
Counsel provided a copy of the Anders petition and brief to Tate, and
advised him of his right to retain new counsel, or proceed pro se, and raise
Accordingly, we find counsel has met the requirements of Anders,
McClendon, and Santiago.
-5-
J-S59025-14
Once counsel has satisfied the above requirements, this Court
conducts its own review of the proceedings and renders an independent
judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.
Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730, 736 (Pa. Super. 2004). On
suppress all evidence obtained subsequent to his arrest, claiming that the
police lacked reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or any other grounds to
detain, search, and arrest Tate. Accordingly, Tate argues that all evidence
obtained as a result of his arrest should have been suppressed.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude
meritless. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly
disposes of the question presented. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/14//14, at
14-
surrounding this case reveals that there was an overwhelming amount of
usion that the police
As such, we rely upon the opinion authored by the Honorable Clyde W.
sion in the event of further proceedings in the
-6-
J-S59025-14
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel
granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/2014
-7-
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM
Circulated 09/18/2014 04:00 PM