J-S20039-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN E. DIXON : : Appellant : No. 1222 MDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 8, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000387-2020 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN DIXON : : Appellant : No. 1223 MDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 8, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000171-2022

BEFORE: OLSON, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 12, 2025 Appellant, John E. Dixon, appeals nunc pro tunc from the aggregate judgment of sentence of three to twelve years’ incarceration, imposed after he pled guilty, in two separate cases, to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b), in case CP-58-CR-0000387-2020 (hereinafter case “387-2020”), as well as homicide by vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3732(a), and another count of DUI, in case CP-58-CR-0000171-2022 (hereinafter case J-S20039-25

“171-2022”). On appeal, Appellant seeks to challenge the validity of his guilty pleas and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel, Joseph G. McGraw, Esq., seeks to withdraw his representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). After careful review, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

The facts underlying Appellant’s convictions are not pertinent to our instant disposition. Procedurally, Appellant pled guilty to DUI in case 387- 2020 on December 1, 2021. While he was awaiting sentencing, he obtained new charges in case 171-2022. On January 4, 2023, Appellant pled guilty to DUI and homicide by vehicle in that case. On February 8, 2023, Appellant was sentenced in both cases to the aggregate term stated above. He did not file any post-sentence motions, nor did he perfect a direct appeal.

On November 30, 2023, Appellant filed, in both cases, a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a direct appeal on his behalf. Attorney McGraw was appointed to represent Appellant and filed an amended petition. On July 24, 2024, the PCRA court issued an order reinstating Appellant’s post-sentence motion and direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, and dismissing his remaining PCRA claims without prejudice to his right to raise them in a new petition after his judgment of sentence becomes final.

-2- J-S20039-25

On August 21, 2024, Attorney McGraw improperly filed a single notice of appeal on Appellant’s behalf, listing the docket numbers of both of Appellant’s two underlying cases. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note (“Where … one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed.”). This Court subsequently ordered Appellant to file amended notices of appeal listing only one docket number, and counsel complied. We thereafter consolidated Appellant’s appeals sua sponte.

On August 23, 2024, the trial court issued an order directing Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Attorney McGraw did not comply with this order, and filed no Rule 1925(b) statement on Appellant’s behalf. On September 20, 2024, the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion concluding that Appellant had waived any issue(s) for our review by not complying with the court’s Rule 1925(b) order.

See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/20/24, at 3. However, the court went on to provide a detailed discussion of the issues it foresaw Appellant raising on appeal, namely, challenges to the validity of his guilty plea and the sentences imposed by the court. See id. at 3-9.1 ____________________________________________

-3- J-S20039-25

On July 25, 2025, Attorney McGraw filed with this Court a petition to withdraw from representing Appellant, as well as an Anders brief.2 In the Anders brief, counsel discusses the two issues that Appellant could arguably raise on appeal, i.e., challenges to the validity of his guilty plea and the sentence imposed by the trial court. See Anders Brief at 17-21, 21-27.

____________________________________________

appellant represented by counsel in a criminal case was ordered to file and serve a Statement and either failed to do so, or untimely filed or served a Statement, such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, and the trial court did not file an opinion, the appellate court may remand for appointment of new counsel, the filing or service of a Statement nunc pro tunc, and the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. Stroud, 297 A.3d 1152, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2023) (finding that a remand of Stroud’s case was necessary, not because of his counsel’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement or statement of intent to withdraw, but because the lack of a complete record prohibited this Court from conducting an independent review under Anders); Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (concluding that where an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement has been filed, “this Court may decide the appeal on the merits if the trial court had adequate opportunity to prepare an opinion addressing the issues being raised on appeal”).

Accordingly, on June 26, 2025, this Court issued a memorandum decision with instructions to Attorney McGraw to file, within thirty days, either an advocate’s brief or a petition to withdraw, Anders brief, and letter to Appellant that satisfied the requirements for withdrawal, discussed infra. Attorney McGraw complied with this directive by filing his July 25, 2025 petition to withdraw and new Anders brief.

-4- J-S20039-25

Attorney McGraw concludes that these issues are frivolous, and that Appellant has no other, non-frivolous claims he could pursue herein. Accordingly, this Court must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw before reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented by [the appellant]. 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: (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 also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a letter that advises the client of his 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)….

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014). After determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of Anders and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of the record to ascertain if there appear[s] on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that

-5- J-S20039-25

counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

In this case, Attorney McGraw’s Anders brief complies with the above- stated requirements. Namely, he includes a summary of the relevant factual and procedural history, he refers to portions of the record that could arguably support Appellant’s claims, and he sets forth his conclusion that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. He also explains his reasons for reaching that determination, and supports his rationale with citations to the record and pertinent legal authority. Attorney McGraw also attached a letter directed to Appellant to his petition to withdraw, in which he informed Appellant of the rights enumerated in Nischan, and stated that he provided a copy of his Anders brief to Appellant. Accordingly, counsel has complied with the technical requirements for withdrawal. We will now independently review the record to determine if Appellant’s issues are frivolous, and to ascertain if there are any other, non-frivolous claims he could pursue on appeal.

In this regard, we have examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have considered the well- reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jason J. Legg, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, filed on September 20, 2024. See TCO. We conclude that Judge Legg’s opinion accurately disposes of the issues Appellant seeks to raise herein, and demonstrates why those issues are frivolous. See id. at 4-9. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Legg’s opinion as our own. Additionally, our review of the record reveals no other, non-frivolous -6- J-S20039-25

claims that Appellant could assert on appeal.3 Therefore, we affirm his judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/12/2025

____________________________________________

-7-