J-A10042-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ANTONIO ERWIN : : Appellant : No. 2275 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 3, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001972-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 22, 2019 Appellant, Antonio Erwin, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following revocation of probation. As a prefatory matter, we observe counsel has designated and filed an Anders1 brief on appeal. Pursuant to Anders and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159, 978 A.2d 349 (2009), when counsel determines that after a conscientious review of the record, there are no non-frivolous issues for review, and seeks to withdraw from representation, counsel must petition the Court for leave to withdraw and (1) provide in the accompanying brief a summary of the procedural history and facts of the case, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes might arguably support the appeal; (3) set forth

____________________________________________

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

J-A10042-19

counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding the appeal is frivolous. Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361. Counsel must also furnish a copy of the brief to the appellant with a cover letter advising the appellant that he has an immediate right to obtain new (privately-retained) counsel or file a pro se brief to raise any additional points the appellant deems worthy of review.

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa.Super. 2010). Santiago altered the prior requirements for a proper withdrawal under Anders, where counsel is now required to provide the reasons for concluding the appeal is frivolous. Id. Santiago did not, however, alter the notice requirements of Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa.Super. 2005), which remain binding precedent. Daniels, supra at 594. The practice of attaching to the withdrawal petition a copy of counsel’s letter to Appellant ensures proper notice to the appellant of the appellant’s rights and relieves this Court of having to assume counsel’s rightful burden. Millisock, supra. Instantly, counsel attached to his petition to withdraw a copy of the cover letter counsel sent to Appellant, enclosing a copy of the Anders brief counsel filed and advising Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or with newly retained counsel. See id. (holding counsel must attach as exhibit to petition to withdraw filed with this Court, copy of letter sent to client advising of client’s rights). Counsel’s letter, however, is inadequate as it failed to provide clear advice to Appellant that Appellant has the immediate right to proceed pro se

-2- J-A10042-19

or with privately retained counsel to raise any additional issues Appellant deems worthy of review in this Court. Counsel’s letter is either vague or incomplete in this regard.

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw at this time and direct counsel to file an amended petition to withdraw as counsel in this Court, within ten days of the filing date of this judgment order, and attach to the amended withdrawal petition a copy of the amended letter sent to Appellant, fully advising Appellant of his immediate right, either pro se or with privately retained counsel, to file a brief on any additional points Appellant deems worthy of review. Counsel must also advise Appellant that he may respond, within 45 days of counsel’s amended letter, to counsel’s Anders brief.

Petition to withdraw as counsel denied; case remanded temporarily with instructions. Panel jurisdiction is retained.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/22/19

-3-