Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2024 Pa. Super. 314

Com. v. Frazier, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 31, 2024

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2024-12-31

Relies on Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. Turner · 379 Pa. Super. 390 - Commonwealth v. Finley

Decided 2024-12-31

J-S15026-24

                                   
2024 PA Super 314

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DERRICK FRAZIER                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1911 EDA 2021

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 5, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0003799-2018


BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J. *

OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.:                             FILED DECEMBER 31, 2024

       Appellant Derrick Frazier appeals from the order denying his Post

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition without a hearing. Appellant’s counsel,

Margeaux Kelly Cigainero, Esq., (Attorney Cigainero) has filed an application

for leave to withdraw and an Anders/Santiago2 brief. After review, we grant

____________________________________________


* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.


1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.


2 We note that Attorney Cigainero seeks permission for leave to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
 (1967), and
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 
978 A.2d 349
 (Pa. 2009), instead of
Commonwealth v. Turner, 
544 A.2d 927
 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth
v. Finley, 
550 A.2d 213
 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). See Commonwealth
v. Wrecks, 
931 A.2d 717, 721
 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that counsel
petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must proceed not under
Anders, but under Turner and Finley). In any event, this Court may accept
an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter because an Anders brief
provides greater protection to the defendant). See Commonwealth v.
Fusselman, 
866 A.2d 1109
, 1111 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2004).
J-S15026-24



Attorney Cigainero’s application to withdraw and remand for further

proceedings.

       Briefly, on September 11, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated

assault and possession of an instrument of crime. 3 That same day, the trial

court sentenced Appellant to a term of six to twelve years’ incarceration,

followed by five years’ probation. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

       On December 1, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA

court appointed Attorney Judge Hall, Esq. (Attorney Hall), who filed a

Turner/Finley no-merit letter.          On July 6, 2021, the PCRA court issued a

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a

hearing. On August 5, 2021, the PCRA court issued an order dismissing

Appellant’s petition.

       On September 3, 2021, the PCRA court docketed Appellant’s pro se

notice of appeal. The PCRA court subsequently appointed Attorney Cigainero,

who filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on Appellant’s behalf.

       On appeal, Attorney Cigainero has identified the following issue for

review:

       Whether [Appellant’s] guilty plea was entered into knowingly and
       intelligently because he stated in his PCRA [petition] that he did
       not know the parole violation penalty would run consecutively to
       his new sentence?

Anders/Santiago Brief at 7.


____________________________________________


3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a) and 907(a), respectively.


                                           -2-
J-S15026-24



      Before addressing the merits of the matters identified in the

Turner/Finley brief, we must first consider whether Attorney Cigainero met

the   technical   requirements     for   withdrawing     from     representation.

Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 
141 A.3d 509, 510
 (Pa. Super. 2016). This Court

has explained:

      Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must
      proceed under [Turner and Finley] and must review the case
      zealously. Turner/Finley counsel must then submit a “no-merit”
      letter to the trial court, or brief on appeal to this Court, detailing
      the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case,
      listing the issues which petitioner wants to have reviewed,
      explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and requesting
      permission to withdraw.

      Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the “no
      merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to withdraw;
      and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed pro
      se or by new counsel.

      Where counsel submits a petition and no-merit letter that satisfy
      the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the court—trial court or
      this Court—must then conduct its own review of the merits of the
      case. If the court agrees with counsel that the claims are without
      merit, the court will permit counsel to withdraw and deny relief.

Id. at 510-11
 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

      Here, Attorney Cigainero has filed an application for leave to withdraw

stating that she reviewed the record and determined that the appeal was

frivolous. See Application to Withdraw, 9/7/23. Although Attorney Cigainero

indicated that she sent Appellant a copy of the Turner/Finley brief, she failed

to provide proof of service for the application to withdraw or the

Turner/Finley brief. Further, Attorney Cigainero failed to attach a copy of



                                      -3-
J-S15026-24



the letter mailed to Appellant informing him of his right to retain new counsel

or proceed pro se.4

       Ordinarily, we would conclude that Attorney Cigainero has failed to

comply with Turner/Finley and deny Attorney Cigainero’s petition to

withdraw.     See Muzzy, 
141 A.3d at 510
.         However, because Attorney

Cigainero has previously failed to comply with this Court’s orders directing her

to comply with Turner/Finley, we conclude that in the interests of judicial

economy, it is necessary to grant Attorney Cigainero’s motion to withdraw and

remand this matter for the PCRA court to appoint new counsel on Appellant’s

behalf.   See Commonwealth v. Burrus, 
2021 WL 2288077
, at *1 (Pa.

Super. filed June 4, 2021) (unpublished mem.) (remanding for the




____________________________________________


4 We note that on December 19, 2023, this Court entered an order directing

Attorney Cigainero to provide Appellant with copies of her application to
withdraw and Turner/Finley brief, to provide written notice to the
Prothonotary of this Court that she has complied, and to file with the
Prothonotary of this Court seven copies of a letter addressed to Appellant
advising him of his immediate right to proceed pro se or with privately retained
counsel. Attorney Cigainero failed to comply within the designated time
period. On January 30, 2024, this Court entered an order directing Attorney
Cigainero to comply with this Court’s prior order within five days. Attorney
Cigainero again failed to comply.

On February 14, 2024, and February 22, 2024, the Prothonotary of this Court
attempted to reach Attorney Cigainero but she did not respond. On March 1,
2024, this Court issued an order notifying Appellant of his immediate right to
proceed pro se or through privately retained counsel. The order also directed
this Court’s Prothonotary to send Appellant a copy of Attorney Cigainero’s
filings along with this Court’s order.


                                           -4-
J-S15026-24



appointment of new counsel in a Turner/Finley matter).5                 We note that

Attorney Cigainero’s repeated disregard of this Court’s orders and failure to

respond    to   communications        from     this   Court’s   Prothonotary   is   both

irresponsible and troubling. Further, such behavior is not in the best interest

of her client nor the administration of justice.

       On remand, we direct the PCRA court to appoint new counsel for

Appellant within fourteen days of this order. Within the fourteen-day period,

the court of common pleas shall provide this Court with a copy of the

appointment order and an updated docket reflecting entry of appearance of

new counsel. New counsel shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this

Order, also enter their appearance in this Court.

       Upon entry of appearance by new counsel in this Court, this Court’s

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to send new counsel a copy of Attorney Cigainero’s

Turner/Finley brief. New counsel shall have forty-five (45) days from the

date of entry of appearance to file an advocate’s brief for Appellant or file a

new application to withdraw with a Turner/Finley brief.

       Petition to withdraw as counsel granted in favor of the appointment of

new counsel. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.

       Judge Colins joins the opinion.

       Judge Olson concurs in the result.


____________________________________________


5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating that we may cite to unpublished memoranda

filed after May 1, 2019 for persuasive value).

                                           -5-

/2024/pasuper/314 · .json · Public domain