J-S54005-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TIMOTHY JON SANTERSERO
Appellant No. 378 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 27, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000457-2013
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014
Timothy Jon Santersero appeals from his judgment of sentence
imposed on November 22, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne
County after he pled guilty to ten counts of possession of child pornography.1
Counsel has petitioned this Court to withdraw his representation of
Santersero pursuant to Anders, McClendon and Santiago.2 Upon review,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d)(1). Santersero was prosecuted under an earlier
version of the statute. Subsection (d)(1) of the prior version was, in
substance, replaced by current section 6312(d). See Act 2013-105 (H.B.
321), P.L. 1163, § 2, approved Dec. 18, 2013, eff. Jan. 1, 2014.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); and Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
J-S54005-14
we affirm Santersero’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to
withdraw.
In order to withdraw pursuant to Anders and McClendon, counsel
must: 1) petition the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a
thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded the issues to be raised
are wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that
might arguably support an appeal; and 3) furnish a copy of the brief to the
appellant and advise him of his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se
brief to raise any additional points that the appellant deems worthy of
review. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 783 A.2d 784, 786 (Pa. Super.
2001). In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, in order to withdraw under Anders,
counsel must also state his reasons for concluding his client’s appeal is
frivolous.
Instantly, counsel’s petition states that he has made an examination of
the record and concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel indicates
that he supplied Santersero with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining
Santersero’s right to proceed pro se,3 or with newly-retained counsel, and to
raise any other issues he believes might have merit. Counsel also has
____________________________________________
3
Santersero has not submitted any additional or supplemental filings to this
Court. Additionally, the Commonwealth has indicated that it will not be filing
a brief in this matter.
-2-
J-S54005-14
submitted a brief, setting out in neutral form a single issue of arguable merit
and, pursuant to the dictates of Santiago, explains why he believes the
issue to be frivolous. Thus, counsel has substantially complied with the
requirements for withdrawal.
Counsel having satisfied the above requirements, this Court must
conduct its own review of the proceedings and render 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 appeal, Santersero raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to
consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
It is well-settled that the sentencing court possesses the discretion to
impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being
imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[T]he
imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a
substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where
the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes
and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d
365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Here, Santersero pled guilty to ten counts of possession of child
pornography (F3). The offense gravity score on each count was a five;
-3-
J-S54005-14
Santersero’s prior record score was also a five. Accordingly, a standard
range sentence for each count would have been 12 to 18 months’
imprisonment. On counts one and two, the court sentenced him to
consecutive terms of imprisonment of 18 to 36 months. On each of the
remaining counts, Santersero received concurrent sentences of 4 years’
special probation, to run consecutive to the sentences imposed on counts
one and two. Santersero’s sentences were within the standard range.
Moreover, the trial court was in possession of a pre-sentence investigation
report, which it considered in fashioning Santersero’s sentence. Where a
pre-sentence report exists, we presume that the sentencing judge was
aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and
weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 967 n.7 (Pa. 2007).
In light of the foregoing, and of the serious nature of Santersero’s
multiple offenses, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its
discretion in running Santersero’s sentences consecutively rather than
concurrently. Because Santersero’s sole appellate claim is without merit, we
grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed; petition to withdraw as counsel
granted.
STABILE, J., Joins in the memorandum.
MUNDY, J., Concurs in the result.
-4-
J-S54005-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/2014
-5-