J-S41017-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
J. JESUS SANCHEZ-SALOMON
Appellant No. 2095 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002616-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 17, 2017
J. Jesus Sanchez-Salomon appeals from the judgment of sentence,
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, following his
conviction of driving under the influence – highest amount of alcohol,1 and
driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance – general
impairment.2 Counsel has filed a brief and a motion for leave to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1969), and
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). After our review,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c).
2
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).
J-S41017-17
we grant counsel’s petition for leave to withdraw and affirm Sanchez-
Salomon’s judgment of sentence.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the Honorable Howard F.
Knisely sentenced Sanchez-Salomon to one to five years’ imprisonment, a
$2,500 fine, and associated costs. No post-sentence motions were filed.
Counsel for Sanchez-Salomon, Melissa Porter, Esquire, filed a notice of
appeal, and, thereafter, a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), claiming that Sanchez-Salomon’s plea
was unknowing and involuntary because he does not speak or write English.
See Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/18/17, at 1. In his opinion, Judge Knisely
notes that at no point during Sanchez-Salomon’s guilty plea hearing did he
“give any indication that he did not understand the proceedings or that he
had any problem communicating through the certified Spanish interpreter.”
Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/17, at 2. At the hearing, Sanchez-Salomon did not
raise any objections to his sentence nor did he file a motion to withdraw his
plea prior to launching this appeal. See id. at 5.
Before addressing the merits of Sanchez-Salomon’s underlying issue,
we must first pass on counsel’s petition to withdraw. Commonwealth v.
Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc). Prior to
withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders, counsel must file a
brief that meets the requirements established by our Supreme Court in
Santiago. The brief must:
-2-
J-S41017-17
(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. Counsel must also provide the appellant with a
copy of the Anders brief, together with a letter that advises the appellant of
his or her right to “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed
pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of
the court’s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the
Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa.
Super. 2007).
Here, counsel has substantially complied with these requirements.
See Motion to Withdraw, 4/21/17; Letter to Defendant, 4/21/17; Anders
Brief, 4/21/17. We, therefore, proceed to an independent review of the
record to determine if, in fact, Sanchez-Salomon’s claim is frivolous.
Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2006).
The guilty plea/sentencing transcript indicates that Rebecca Thatcher
Murcia, an interpreter, translated the plea proceedings from English into
Spanish and from Spanish into English. See N.T. Guilty Plea/Sentencing,
11/21/16, at 2. The record, therefore, belies Sanchez-Salomon’s claim.
In her Anders brief, Attorney Porter raises an independent issue
regarding Sanchez-Salomon’s understanding of the immigration
-3-
J-S41017-17
consequences of his plea. See Anders Brief, 4/21/17, at 10-11. Sanchez-
Salomon did not express any issues with the immigration consequences of
his plea at sentencing, although the court asked him if he understood that
entering a guilty plea could result in adverse immigration action, including
deportation and barriers to further entry to the United States. See N.T.
Guilty Plea/Sentencing, 11/21/16, at 5. His trial counsel stated that as
Sanchez-Salomon is a lawful, permanent resident, “automatic deportation,
as we discussed, is not an issue.” Id. When asked by the court if he
understood the discussion, Sanchez-Salomon replied that he did. Id. at 5.
The record, therefore, does not support any immigration-related issue
Sanchez-Salomon might raise.
We agree with counsel that Sanchez-Salomon’s claim is wholly
frivolous. Moreover, our independent review of the record has revealed no
other preserved issues of arguable merit. Accordingly, we affirm his
judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/17/2017
-4-
Com. v. Sanchez-Salomon, J.
Combined Opinion