Opinion
J-S58030-17 No. 653 MDA 2017
12-22-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RONALD E. BOLL, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 27, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-SA-0000010-2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Appellant, Ronald E. Boll, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on March 27, 2017, in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. Appellate counsel has filed a petition seeking to withdraw his representation and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), which govern withdrawal from representation on direct appeal. After careful review, we grant counsel's petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence.
The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this case as follows:
On December 9, 2016 at approximately 1:05 p.m., Patrolman Nathan Groft of the Carroll Valley Borough Police Department observed a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck
traveling eastbound on East Main Street in the Borough of Fairfield without an inspection sticker. Patrolman Groft effectuated a traffic stop of the pickup truck. Patrolman Groft testified he observed Appellant driving the pickup truck and that Appellant was the only individual in the vehicle. Patrolman Groft learned Appellant's driver's license in Pennsylvania was suspended. Appellant was cited for driving under suspension in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a)1 with the enhancement under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503(a.1).2
1 "Except as provided in subsection (b), any person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or trafficway of this Commonwealth after the commencement of a suspension, revocation or cancellation of the operating privilege and before the operating privilege has been restored is guilty of a summary offense . . . ." 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a).
2 "A person convicted of a sixth or subsequent offense under section 1543(a) shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $1,000 and to imprisonment for not less than 30 days but not more than six months." 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503(a.1).
At the summary appeal hearing Appellant testified that "the state inspection tag, registration[,] driver's license are all frivolous and non-necessary items according to Superior Court rules." He claimed federal law does not require a state inspection, registration, and driver's license unless the person is "using the roadways in a commercial capacity", which he was not.
This [c]ourt found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving under suspension in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a) with the applicable enhancement under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503(a.1). Appellant was sentenced to not less than two months nor more than six months imprisonment, as well as a $1,000 fine and other fees and costs. This sentence was to run consecutive to any other sentence Appellant was serving.
On April 4, 2017, Appellant filed a Post Sentence Motion which this Court denied by Order of Court dated April 5, 2017. On April 18, 2017, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. By Order of Court dated April 21, 2017, Appellant was directed to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Appellant filed his concise statement on May 4, 2017.Trial Court Opinion, 5/9/17, at 1-2 (internal citation and footnote omitted).
Appellant was represented by Attorney Ryan W. Liggitt, Assistant Public Defender of Adams County. --------
Before we address the issue that Appellant's counsel raised on appeal, we must resolve appellate counsel's request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Cartrette , 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc). There are procedural and briefing requirements imposed upon an attorney who seeks to withdraw on direct appeal. The procedural mandates are that counsel must:
1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court's attention.Id. at 1032 (citation omitted).
In this case, counsel has satisfied those directives. Within his petition to withdraw and Anders brief, counsel averred that after making a conscientious examination of the record, he concluded that the present appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel sent Appellant a copy of the Anders brief and the petition to withdraw, as well as a letter advising Appellant that he could represent himself or retain private counsel to represent him. A copy of that letter was attached to counsel's Anders brief.
We now examine whether the brief satisfies the Supreme Court's dictates in Santiago , which provide that:
in the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel's petition to withdraw, counsel 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.Cartrette , 83 A.3d at 1032 (quoting Santiago , 978 A.2d at 361).
We are satisfied that counsel has met the requirements set forth in Santiago. Counsel's brief sets forth the factual and procedural history of this case, cites to the record, and refers to issues that counsel arguably believes supports the appeal. Anders Brief at 6-8. Further, the brief includes counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, and it contains pertinent case authority and counsel's reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Id. at 8-10. Accordingly, we address the following issues raised in the Anders brief:
Appellant avers This Honorable [c]ourt abused its discretion by finding that [Appellant] is subject to the statutory and common laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Appellant avers the [c]ourt failed to recognize Appellant[']s "Sovereign Citizen," status and that Appellant has neither consented to nor submitted himself to the governance of the
United States or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Appellant avers, he is not subject to traffic laws, but has a fundamental right to travel within the [C]ommonwealth.Anders Brief at 6.
Our standard of review is as follows:
Issues pertaining to jurisdiction are pure questions of law, and an appellate court's scope of review is plenary. Questions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review. . . .Commonwealth v. McGarry , ___ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 4562726, *3 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Jurisdiction relates to the court's power to hear and decide the controversy presented. All courts of common pleas have statewide subject matter jurisdiction in cases arising under the Crimes Code pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 931.
In McGarry , the appellant argued that he was a "sovereign citizen" and, therefore, was not subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Id. at *3. In addressing this claim, this Court explained:
Courts in this Commonwealth and various Federal Courts of Appeals have rejected sovereign citizen claims, identical to those raised here in a handful of unpublished decisions, as frivolous. See , e.g., United States v. Himmelreich , 481 Fed.Appx. 39, 40 n.2 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing with approval United States v. Benabe , 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011)); Charlotte v. Hansen , 433 Fed.Appx. 660, 661 (10th Cir. 2011) ("an individual's belief that her status as a sovereign citizen puts her beyond the jurisdiction of the courts has no conceivable validity in American law."). We agree that such sovereign citizen claims are frivolous.Id.
Thus, Appellant's claims of being a sovereign citizen and not subject to the laws of this country or commonwealth are frivolous. Accordingly, we agree with counsel that these issues lack merit.
We also have independently reviewed the record in order to determine if counsel's assessment about the frivolity of the present appeal is correct. Anders ; Santiago ; Cartrette. We agree with counsel's assessment, grant him permission to withdraw, and affirm.
Counsel's petition to withdraw is granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/22/2017