J-S18013-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MONICA C. VEGA-ALVARADO,
Appellant No. 1615 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-06-CR-0002046-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016
Monica C. Vega-Alvarado appeals from the judgement of sentence of
eleven and one-half months to twenty-three months imprisonment that was
imposed pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea to possession of a controlled
substance (cocaine). We affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw
from representation.
We glean the pertinent facts from the affidavit of probable cause and
the Commonwealth’s presentation of the factual basis for the guilty plea. On
October 5, 2014, Reading Police Officer Eric Niemsyk encountered Appellant
and other unidentified individuals at the intersection of Bingham and 18 th
Streets in Reading, Pennsylvania. Dressed in full uniform, Officer Niemsyk
alighted his marked patrol car and asked Appellant and her companions for
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S18013-16
identification. After they provided their names, Officer Niemsyk told the
group that they were free to leave. Before Appellant walked too far away,
Officer Niemsyk called out, “Hey, can I ask you something” and Appellant
responded affirmatively. See Criminal Complaint, 2/12/15, at AOPC Form
411C. The officer reminded Appellant that she was still free to leave and
then inquired whether “she had anything illegal on her.” Id. Appellant
initially failed to respond, but on Officer Niemsyk’s second query, she
produced a clear plastic bag of crack cocaine from her bra and surrendered it
to him. Id. Appellant is not a person who is registered, licensed, or
authorized to possess the controlled substance. Criminal Complaint,
2/12/15; N.T., 7/30/15, at 4.
Appellant was charged with one count each of possession of a
controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia. Represented by the
Office of the Berks County Public Defender, Appellant executed a negotiated
guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance graded as a
misdemeanor. As part of the agreement, the Commonwealth requested that
the trial court impose the agreed-upon sentence of eleven and one-half
months to twenty-three months imprisonment, a standard range sentence in
light of Appellant’s prior record and offense gravity scores, and moved to
dismiss the remaining offense. N.T., 7/30/15, at 5. Appellant executed a
written guilty plea, and following an oral colloquy, the trial court found the
Appellant was entering the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily,
-2-
J-S18013-16
accepted the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, dismissed the
remaining count, and immediately entered the judgment of sentence. Id. at
3-5. Thereafter, the trial court ensured that Appellant had been advised of
her post-sentence and appellate rights. Id. at 6.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion seeking solely to reduce
her sentence. On August 19, 2015, the trial court denied the motion. This
timely appeal followed. In response to the trial court’s order to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal, Assistant Public Defender
Christopher M. Price invoked Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) and filed a statement of
his intent to file an Anders brief and petition to withdraw from
representation.1
We may not address the merits of the appeal without first reviewing
the request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639
(Pa.Super. 2005). Accordingly, we review Attorney Price’s petition at the
outset.
In Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009), our
Supreme Court altered our application of the Anders briefing requirements
to permit counsel to fully articulate his or her conclusion that the appeal is
frivolous. The Santiago Court did not change the remaining procedural
requirements that court-appointed counsel must satisfy in requesting to
____________________________________________
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
-3-
J-S18013-16
withdraw from representation, i.e.: (1) petition the court for leave to
withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the
record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous;
(2) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant; and (3) advise the
defendant of his or her right to retain new counsel or raise any additional
points that he or she deems worthy of the court's attention.
Herein, Attorney Price’s petition to withdraw from representation
stated that he had made a conscientious review of the record and had
concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous. In addition, Attorney Price
attested that he mailed to Appellant: a copy of the petition to withdraw; a
copy of the Anders brief stating the reasons for his conclusion; and a letter
advising Appellant of her rights to proceed pro se or to retain private counsel
if the petition is granted and to raise any additional issues that she deemed
worthy of consideration.2 Significantly, with respect to the latter
requirement, Attorney Price mailed Appellant a letter advising her of her
rights. See Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super.
2005). Thus, counsel has satisfied the procedural requirements of Anders.
Having found procedural compliance, we now must determine whether
Attorney Price’s Anders brief complies with the substantive dictates outlined
in Santiago. We conclude that it does. Attorney Price’s Anders brief 1)
____________________________________________
2
Appellant neglected to respond to counsel’s letter or the petition to
withdraw.
-4-
J-S18013-16
summarized the procedural history and pertinent facts with citation to the
certified record; 2) identified the testimony adduced during the evidentiary
hearing that arguably supports the appeal and outlines potential claims that
the certified record does not sustain the statutory grounds for termination;
3) referenced controlling case law in setting forth his conclusion that the
appeal is frivolous; and 4) explained his finding that it is. Accordingly,
Attorney Price satisfied the Santiago requirements.
Next, we consider the issue raised in the Anders brief,
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s Post
Sentence Motion to Modify Sentence where . . . Appellant was
remorseful[,] . . . expected no further contact with the criminal
justice system, and wishe[d] to consummate a meaningful and
accelerated reintegration to society.
Appellant’s brief at 5.
Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence.
Before we reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, we must
ascertain whether 1) a timely appeal was filed from the judgment of
sentence; 2) the issue was preserved during the trial court proceedings; 3)
the appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and 4) the Rule 2119(f)
statement reveals a substantial question that the sentence was not
appropriate under the sentencing code. Commonwealth v. Lebarre, 961
A.2d 176, 178 (Pa.Super. 2008).
Herein, Appellant filed a timely appeal and previously preserved the
claim in her post-sentence motion. Attorney Price declined to raise the issue
-5-
J-S18013-16
in a Rule 1925(b) statement on the grounds that the claim was baseless and
that he intend to file the instant Anders brief, which omitted the required
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 statement, ostensibly for the same reason. In light of
Appellant’s timely appeal, preservation of her claim in a post-sentence
motion, and our obligation to perform an independent review of this case, to
the extent that the certified record reveals a non-frivolous claim, we will not
find that claimed waived due to counsel’s omissions.
Our standard of review is well settled. “Sentencing is a matter vested
within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a
manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280
1282-1283 (Pa.Super. 2010). To establish an abuse of discretion, Appellant
must prove that the sentencing court arrived at a manifestly unreasonable
sentence, ignored or misapplied the law, or exercised its judgment with
impartiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d
957, 961 (Pa. 2007). None of the foregoing conditions are implicated in the
case at bar.
It is well-settled that “where a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement specifying particular penalties, the defendant may not seek
a discretionary appeal relating to those agreed-upon penalties.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 982 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa.Super. 2009).
Herein, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of a
controlled substance graded as a misdemeanor. The trial court accepted the
-6-
J-S18013-16
terms of the accord and entered the agreed-upon sentence. Hence,
pursuant to Brown, supra, Appellant received the benefit of her plea
bargain and she cannot seek to challenge the negotiated penalty as
excessive. This issue is wholly frivolous.
Finally, we have independently reviewed the certified record and found
no preserved issues that would arguably support the direct appeal. The
guilty plea proceeding confirms that Appellant entered the guilty plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. See Commonwealth v. Pollard,
832 A.2d 517, 522-523 (Pa.Super. 2003); Pa.R.Crim.P. 590. Stated plainly,
Appellant understood the nature of the charges to which she pled guilty,
adopted the Commonwealth’s factual basis for the plea, and acknowledged
her right to a jury trial and the presumption of her innocence. Moreover,
Appellant was aware of her maximum sentencing exposure—three years
imprisonment and a $25,000 fine, and she understood that the trial court
would not be bound by the terms of the negotiated plea unless it accepts the
agreement. In addition to the oral colloquy, the certified record includes a
written colloquy that Appellant read, completed, signed, and then reaffirmed
on the record during the plea proceeding. There are no preserved non-
frivolous issues that would support this appeal.
Having addressed the issue leveled in the Anders brief and
independently reviewed the certified record, we agree with Attorney Price
-7-
J-S18013-16
that the direct appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders, supra and Santiago, supra.
Petition of Christopher Price, Esquire, to withdraw from representation
is granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/11/2016
-8-