Com. v. Moody, C. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J. S33010/15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :          PENNSYLVANIA
    v.                    :
    :
    CHRISTIAN MOODY,                         :         No. 2934 EDA 2014
    :
    Appellant        :
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, September 17, 2014,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0002459-2014
    BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. DONOHUE AND LAZARUS, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:                    FILED JULY 08, 2015
    Christian Moody appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
    following his conviction of false identification to a law enforcement officer.
    His court-appointed counsel, Richard J. Blasetti, Esq., has filed a petition to
    withdraw and accompanying Anders1 brief. After careful review, we grant
    the petition to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
    On January 3, 2014 at 2:30 a.m., a pedestrian in the parking lot of a
    Wawa convenience store flagged down Officer Kevin Wiley.             The man
    reported a person inside the store acting suspiciously and another male
    waiting in a red Cadillac outside. The officer entered the store and inquired
    of the manager if everything was all right; the manager stated that a male
    1
    See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and Commonwealth v.
    Santiago, 
    978 A.2d 349
    , 361 (Pa. 2009).
    J. S33010/15
    in the store had been acting unusually, going in and out of the bathroom,
    wandering aimlessly around the store, not making purchases and continually
    asking a female employee at the sandwich counter if she had any
    pornographic magazines. (Notes of testimony, 9/17/14 at 36-38.)
    The officer identified himself to appellant and advised him that he was
    under investigation for disorderly conduct in the store and requested
    identification.   Appellant   identified   himself    as    “Christian    Decateres”;
    appellant failed to produce identification.          Subsequently, at the police
    station, the officer learned appellant’s name was Moody.
    On January 6, 2014, appellant was charged with disorderly conduct,
    possession of drug paraphernalia, and false identification to law enforcement
    officer.   On June 17, 2014, appellant filed a motion for a competency
    hearing, and the trial court ordered appellant to undergo a psychiatric
    competency examination. The resulting psychiatric report stated appellant
    was competent for trial. On September 17, 2014, a bench trial commenced.
    The   Commonwealth     withdrew    the     counts    of    disorderly    conduct   and
    possession of drug paraphernalia; appellant was found guilty of false
    identification.   Appellant waived a pre-sentence investigation and was
    sentenced to one year of intermediate punishment, including a two-month
    period of electronic home monitoring.        On October 14, 2014, an alleged
    family member forwarded the court a motion for a new trial; the document
    bore appellant’s signature. The trial court treated this motion as a pro se
    -2-
    J. S33010/15
    filing; but recognizing that appellant was still represented by counsel, the
    court dismissed the pro se filing.
    This timely appeal followed on October 16, 2014.         The trial court
    directed appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; subsequently,
    counsel filed a statement of intent to file an Anders brief in lieu of filing a
    statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). Consequently, the trial court filed a
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion relying on counsel’s Rule 1925(c)(4) statement
    without addressing any issues. (See trial court opinion, 1/2/15 at 3-4.)
    As noted above, appellant’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw
    under Anders. When presented with an Anders brief, this court may not
    review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the
    request to withdraw.    Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 
    928 A.2d 287
    , 290
    (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). Before counsel is permitted to withdraw, he or
    she must meet the following requirements:
    First, counsel must petition the court for leave to
    withdraw and state that after making a conscientious
    examination of the record, he has determined that
    the appeal is frivolous; second, he must file a brief
    referring to any issues in the record of arguable
    merit; and third, he must furnish a copy of the brief
    to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain
    new counsel or to himself raise any additional points
    he deems worthy of the Superior Court’s attention.
    Santiago, 978 A.2d at 351.
    In the case sub judice, our review of counsel’s petition to withdraw,
    correspondence advising appellant of his rights to proceed pro se or with
    -3-
    J. S33010/15
    privately-retained counsel,2 and the Anders brief satisfies us that counsel
    has complied with all of the foregoing requirements. 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. Santiago,
    supra.
    Appellate counsel has presented a single issue; namely, “whether the
    illegal seizure tainted the balance of the investigation and rendered the
    results of the investigation inadmissible at trial.” (Appellant’s brief at 3.) As
    counsel states, this issue has been waived as appellant did not file a motion
    to suppress.     Following our review of the record, we agree and find this
    claim waived due to appellant’s failure to preserve it. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
    (stating, “Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be
    raised for the first time on appeal.”); Commonwealth v. Shamsud-Din,
    
    995 A.2d 1224
    , 1228 (Pa.Super. 2010) (stating that “in order for a claim of
    error to be preserved for appellate review, a party must make a timely and
    specific objection before the trial court at the appropriate stage of the
    proceedings; the failure to do so will result in waiver of the issue”).
    Having determined the instant appeal is wholly frivolous, and after our
    own independent review, we find there are no issues of arguable merit
    apparent from the record.        We will grant Attorney Blasetti’s petition to
    withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
    2
    Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or retained private counsel.
    -4-
    J. S33010/15
    Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 7/8/2015
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2934 EDA 2014

Filed Date: 7/8/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/8/2015