J-S56004-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JESSE WILLIS KNIGHT IV
Appellant No. 324 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 16, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0000052-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
Appellant, Jesse Willis Knight IV, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on January 16, 2014, by the Honorable Michael A. George,
Court of Common Pleas of Adams County. Additionally, Knig -
appointed counsel, Sean A. Mott, Esquire, has filed an application to
withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349
(2009). After careful review, we affirm Knig
The trial court summarized the history of this case as follows.
On March 18, 2013, Appellant appeared before the [c]ourt
and entered pleas of guilty to possession with intent to deliver a
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56004-14
controlled substance and conspiracy to deliver a controlled
substance both as ungraded felonies. On April 18, 2013,
pursuant to a negotiated agreement, the Appellant was
sentenced to concurrent sentences of 36 months of CIP [County
Intermediate Punishment] with three months of each sentence
to be served in restrictive intermediate punishment at the Adams
County Re-Entry Facility. The Appellant was temporarily placed
on probationary phases until May 22, 2013 at which time he was
directed to report to the Adams County Re-Entry Facility and
begin serving the restrictive phase of his sentence.
On July 29, 2013, the Gettysburg Borough Police
Appellant, while released on community service at the
Gettysburg Recreation Park, had assaulted her by slapping her
twice in the face.3 Following the complaint to the Gettysburg
Borough Police Department, the Adams County Department of
Probation Services filed a revocation petition against the
Appellant. The petition included an allegation that Appellant
committed a violation of the law.4 Additionally, the petition
alleged that the Appellant failed obey prison and house arrest
rules while participating in the release programming.5 In support
of the latter violation, the petition noted that Appellant had an
unauthorized visit with his wife at the Gettysburg Recreation
Park on July 29, 2013; that Appellant made an unauthorized
threatening telephone call to his father-in-law on July 29, 2013;
and that Appellant received a prison misconduct after re-entry
staff found 26 pouches of prohibited tobacco on his person on
August 20, 2013.
[A] [r]evocation hearing was ultimately held on November
12, 2013. At [the] hearing, Appellant conceded violating prison
and work release rules, however, contested violating the law.
After taking testimony, the revocation court found that Appellant
had violated the conditions of his supervision as alleged by the
Commonwealth. A pre-sentence investigation was conducted
and on January 16, 2014, Appellant was resentenced on each
count to no less than 10 months nor more than 23 months and
29 days in partial confinement with a concurrent term of 35
months of probation.
-2-
J-S56004-14
3
protection from abuse order. After [the] hearing, a
final protection from abuse order was granted
against Appellant by the Honorable Judge Robert
Bigham on August 14, 2013. The protection from
abuse action is listed at 13-S-991.
4
Condition 3(a)[.]
5
Condition 3(h)[.]
Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/14 at 1-2. This timely appeal followed.
As noted, Attorney Mott has requested to withdraw and has submitted
an Anders
frivolous. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has articulated the procedure to
be followed when court-appointed counsel seeks to withdraw from
representing an appellant on direct appeal:
[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed
summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations
to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that
counsel arguably believes supports the appeal; (3) set
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.
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 178-79, 978 A.2d 349, 361
(2009).
We note that Attorney Mott has substantially complied with the
requirements of Anders as articulated in Santiago, although he has failed
to cite to the relevant portions of the record. Additionally, Attorney Mott
confirms that he sent a copy of the Anders brief to Appellant as well as a
letter explaining to Appellant that he has the right to proceed pro se or the
-3-
J-S56004-14
right to retain new counsel. A copy of the letter is appended to Attorney
Commonwealth v.
Millisock
must attach as an exhibit to the
petition to withdraw filed with this Court a copy of the letter sent to
Id. at 749 (emphasis in
original).
We will now proceed to examine the issue counsel set forth in the
Anders brief.1 Counsel raises the following issue for our review:
Did the revocation [c]ourt err in finding sufficient evidence that
Appellant had committed assault, thereby violating the rules of
probation, where no formal criminal charges were filed, where
the alleged victim waited a week before reporting the incident,
where no medical documentation of the injuries sustained by
[the] victim was presented by the Commonwealth, and where
the testimony of the alleged victim was no corroborated by
additional witnesses?
Anders brief at 9.
On appeal from a judgment of sentence following the revocation
probation
[o]ur review is limited to determining the validity of the
probation revocation proceedings and the authority of the
sentencing court to consider the same sentencing alternatives
that it had at the time of the initial sentencing. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9771(b).
Commonwealth v. Fish, 752 A.2d 921, 923 (Pa. Super. 2000).
____________________________________________
1
-4-
J-S56004-14
Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the
sound discretion of the trial court and that court's decision will not be
disturbed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of
Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa. Super.
2008) (citation omitted). A court may revoke an order of probation upon
proof of the violation of specified conditions of the probation. See
Commonwealth v. Infante, 585 Pa. 408, 420, 888 A.2d 783, 791 (2005).
A probation violation is established whenever it is shown that the conduct of
the probationer indicates the probation has proven to have been an
ineffective vehicle to accomplish rehabilitation and not sufficient to deter
Id., 585 Pa. at 421, 888 A.2d at 791.
Technical violations are sufficient to trigger revocation. See
Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000).
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant argues only that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he assaulted his wife, and thus, that this
conduct could not support a finding that he had violated the conditions of his
County Intermediate Punishment. Notably, Appellant does not contest the
initiated an unauthorized visit with his wife at the Gettysburg Recreation
Park on July 29, 2013; that Appellant made an unauthorized threatening
telephone call to his father-in-law on July 29, 2013; and that Appellant
received a prison misconduct after re-entry staff found 26 pouches of
-5-
J-S56004-14
prohibited tobacco on his person on August 20, 2013. These violations of
the conditions placed upon Appellant alone are sufficient to support the
See
Infante, supra
to support a finding that he assaulted his wife is moot, as ample additional
evidence existed to support a determination that Appellant violated the
specified conditions of his County Intermediate Punishment.
After examining the issues contained in the Anders brief and
assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Permission to withdraw as counsel is
granted. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2014
-6-