J-S79031-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
COSIL CHILDS, :
:
Appellant : No. 1136 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 16, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-23-CR-0005497-2012
BEFORE: ALLEN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2015
Cosil Childs (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered after a jury found him guilty of criminal attempt to acquire or obtain
possession of a controlled substance (oxycodone) by misrepresentation. In
addition, Appellant’s counsel seeks to withdraw from representation
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we
affirm the judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s application to withdraw.
Appellant was found guilty of the aforementioned crime on April 17,
2013, following a two-day jury trial. On May 16, 2013, Appellant was
sentenced to five to ten years’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a post-
sentence motion, which the trial court subsequently denied. Appellant did
not file a notice of appeal.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S79031-14
On October 21, 2013, Appellant timely filed pro se a petition pursuant
to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA),1 requesting reinstatement of his
direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. The lower court appointed PCRA counsel,
who then filed an amended petition seeking reinstatement of Appellant’s
direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc on March 6, 2014. On or about March 24,
2014, the lower court granted the petition.
On April 4, 2014, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court from
his judgment of sentence. On April 8, 2014, the lower court ordered
Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In response, counsel filed a statement,
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), of his intent to withdraw his
representation of Appellant. The trial court then filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion.
As a preliminary matter, we address counsel’s application to withdraw
before reaching the merits of the issues raised in the brief. Commonwealth
v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth
v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)) (“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.”).
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
-2-
J-S79031-14
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 retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any
additional points worthy of this Court’s attention.
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 or file an
advocate’s brief on Appellant’s behalf). By contrast, if counsel’s
petition and brief satisfy Anders, we will then undertake our
own review of the appeal to determine if it is wholly frivolous. If
the appeal is frivolous, we will grant the withdrawal petition and
affirm the judgment of sentence. However, if there are non-
frivolous issues, we will deny the petition and remand for the
filing of an advocate’s brief.
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 720-21 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has expounded further upon the
requirements of Anders:
in the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s
petition to withdraw, counsel 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. 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.
-3-
J-S79031-14
Based upon our examination of counsel’s application to withdraw and
Anders brief, we conclude that counsel has substantially complied with the
above requirements.2 “We, therefore, turn to the issue presented in
counsel’s Anders brief to make an independent judgment as to whether the
appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54
A.3d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2012).
In his brief, Appellant’s counsel states one issue that might arguably
support an appeal: “Whether a mistrial should have been declared after the
prosecutor repeatedly referred to [Appellant] in [sic] a liar during closing
arguments?” Anders Brief at 3.
Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302, “[i]ssues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Instantly, Appellant’s trial counsel failed to
object to the prosecutor’s statements made during closing argument and
thus, Appellant has waived this issue. See Commonwealth v.
Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162, 168 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding appellant’s
claim that “Commonwealth counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct in
her closing argument to the jury by continuously vouching for the credibility
and veracity of the Commonwealth's witnesses” was waived on appeal
because “[a] review of the record reveal[ed] that trial counsel failed to
2
Appellant has not responded to counsel’s application to withdraw.
-4-
J-S79031-14
object to the complained of statements”). An issue that is waived is
frivolous. See Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 291 (Pa.
Super. 2008). Therefore, we conclude that Appellant’s issue is frivolous.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant
counsel’s application to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application to withdraw as counsel
granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/19/2015
-5-