from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 29, 2018 In the
Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
Anthony Persaud (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of multiple
crimes under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
Cosmetic Act, including possession of a controlled substance
(35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16)); possession with the intent
to deliver a controlled substance (PWID) (35 P.S. §
780-113(a)(30)); criminal conspiracy to commit PWID (18
Pa.C.S.A. § 903/35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)); criminal
use of communication facility (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a));
and possession of drug paraphernalia (35 P.S. §
780-113(a)(32)). Additionally, Appellant's counsel, Henry
W. Fenton, Esquire (Counsel), seeks to withdraw from
representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 38
U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978
A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we grant Counsel's
petition to withdraw and affirm Appellant's judgment of
trial court detailed the protracted and irregular post-trial
procedural history of this case as follows:
On September 20, 2017, Appellant waived Rule 704(A)(1) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (requiring a
sentence be imposed within ninety days after conviction).
Appellant declared that he knowingly waived said provisions
after consultation with his then Counsel. Appellant waived
said right so that he could be transported to Rhode Island
for a guilty plea and sentencing on federal charges pending
in that jurisdiction. Appellant acknowledged that he would be
sentenced in the case sub judice upon his return to
the Lebanon County Correction Facility. The [trial c]ourt,
after consideration of Appellant's waiver; that he was,
at the time, in Federal Prison in Rhode Island; and would be
sentenced on the federal charges in early January, granted
Appellant's request to continue sentencing from November
15, 2017 until January 31, 2018.
On January 31, 2018,  Appellant was sentenced, by the
Honorable Charles T. Jones, Jr., to pay the costs of
prosecution; fines in the total amount of two thousand six
hundred dollars ($2, 600.00); and undergo imprisonment in a
State Correctional Institution for an indeterminate period
the minimum of which to be ninety-six (96) months and the
maximum of which shall be thirty (30) years (consecutive to
his Rhode Island Federal Sentence) with an RRR-I minimum
sentence of seventy-two (72) months.
On February 9, 2018, Appellant filed a Pro Se Motion
for Modification of Sentence. In his Motion for
Modification Appellant states that his [c]ounsel did not do
the following: present accurate Pre-Sentence Investigation
information, present letters from family and friends of 
Appellant, failed to inform the [c]ourt that the Federal
Judge who sentenced Appellant prior to this [c]ourt's
sentencing recommended that this [c]ourt run its sentence
concurrent to Appellant's federal sentence, and explain
to the [c]ourt that some of the Pre-Sentence Investigation
information was incorrect.
Further, Appellant complained that the [c]ourt was
incorrectly under the impression that  Appellant had served
a full sentence of six (6) years for a prior conviction, when
Appellant alleges he was sentenced to ninety (90) days in
jail and six (6) years and nine (9) months suspended time and
probation.  Appellant explained in his Motion that he had
attended a substance abuse program for eight (8) weeks while
in Federal custody awaiting sentencing and graduation from
the program. Finally, a part of Appellant's Federal
Sentence included a one (1) year outpatient substance abuse
program that Appellant would have to attend once a week until
completed, followed by two (2) years of supervised release.
The [c]ourt subsequently entered a Scheduling Order for
disposition of Appellant's Motion on February 13, 2018.
On February 12, 2018, three days after filing his Motion for
Modification of Sentence, Appellant wrote a Pro Se
letter to the Honorable President Judge John C. Tylwalk
regarding his sentencing and obstacles in his life, both past
On February 21, 2018, after receipt of the [c]ourt's
scheduling Order, Attorney Timothy T. Engler (who had
represented Appellant at trial) filed a Petition to Withdraw
as Counsel. Attorney Engler stated in his Petition that a
conflict of interest existed in his continuing representation
of Appellant because Appellant had alleged three instances of
ineffectiveness of [c]ounsel at the post-trial/sentencing
phase of the case. The [c]ourt scheduled a hearing for March
7, 2018, to decide Attorney Engler's Petition to Withdraw
his Appearance. The Courthouse was closed on March 7, 2018,
in anticipation of a severe, winter snowstorm, and the
Petition to Withdraw was rescheduled for April 4, 2018.
Appellant timely filed a Brief in Support of his Motion for
Modification of Sentence on March 8, 2018. The Commonwealth
filed a Motion for Continuance/Extension on March 19, 2018,
which was granted and the Commonwealth thereafter filed its
Brief in Opposition on April 2, 2018.
On March 22, 2018, prior to the re-scheduled hearing on
Attorney Engler's Petition to Withdraw Appearance, Harry
W. Fenton, Esquire entered his appearance on behalf of the
Appellant. On April 4, 2018, the Court granted Attorney
Engler's Petition to Withdraw his Appearance. On April 5,
2018, Appellant, through his new Counsel, filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Support of his Motion
for Modification of Sentence. Appellant's Motion was
granted by the Court on April 6, 2018. Appellant was given
twenty (20) days to file a Supplemental Brief. Appellant
filed his Supplemental Brief in Support of his Motion on
April 24, 2018. On June 6, 2018, after careful consideration
of Appellant's Brief and Supplemental Brief, as well as
consideration of the Commonwealth's Opposition Brief, the
[c]ourt granted Appellant's Motion and scheduled the case
for a Modification of Sentence Hearing. The [c]ourt did so to
ensure that Appellant's sentence would be based on all
available, accurate information.
On August 29, 2018,  Appellant was re-sentenced. The
[c]ourt, after consideration of the pre-sentence
investigation report; the voluminous amount of letters that
were given to the [c]ourt on that day and at the initial
sentencing; the fact that the 2007 sentence was not a six (6)
year incarceration sentence; the guideline ranges; and the
testimony presented at trial, and that day, sentenced
Appellant to pay the costs of prosecution; fines in the total
amount of two thousand six hundred dollars ($2, 600.00); and
undergo imprisonment in a State Correctional Institution for
an indeterminate period the minimum of which to be
eighty-four (84) months and the maximum of which shall be
twenty-five (25) years (consecutive to his Rhode Island
Federal Sentence) with an RRR-I minimum sentence of
sixty-three (63). The August 29, 2018 sentence in this case
reflected a nine (9) month RRRI sentence reduction, a twelve
(12) month minimum-sentence reduction, and a five (5) year
maximum-sentence reduction when compared to Appellant's
original sentence imposed on January 31, 2018.
Thereafter, on September 18, 2018, Counsel for Appellant
filed a Transcript Request seeking the transcript of the
entire proceeding. Appellant filed a Pro Se Motion
in Limine with Respect to [the] I-Phone 6 and USB Seized from
[Appellant]. [Appellant] requested that the Commonwealth be
barred from using his I-Phone 6 and USB as evidence against
him, and both be returned to Appellant. The [c]ourt denied
Appellant's Pro Se Motion in Limine on September
21, 2018. Concurrently, Appellant filed a Pro Se
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Appellant's
Petition was granted on October 4, 2018.
On September 26, 2018, Appellant filed a Pro Se
Notice of Appeal. The Court entered an Order on October 4,
2018, directing Appellant, by and through his Counsel, to
file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal no
later than twenty-one (21) days from the entry of said Order
(October 26, 2018). The Order further provided that any
issues not properly preserved and/or included in the Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal would be deemed
waived. Appellant untimely filed his Pro Se Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on October 29,
2018. However, the Court notes that Appellant's mailing
envelope was post-marked October 24, 2018, and . . . thus
address[ed] Appellant's claims.
Court Opinion, 11/21/18, at 4-7. On November 8, 2018, Counsel
also filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on behalf of Appellant.
outset, we are compelled to address the hybrid representation
that occurred in the trial court once Appellant, on September
26, 2018, filed the timely pro se notice of appeal,
despite being represented by Counsel.
well-settled that an appellant does not have a right to
proceed both pro se and with the benefit of counsel.
Such representation is considered "hybrid"
representation and is prohibited within the Commonwealth.
See Commonwealth v. Staton,184 A.3d 949, 958 (Pa.
2018) (no defendant has a constitutional right to
self-representation together with counseled representation
"either at trial or on appeal"); see also
Commonwealth v. Jette,23 A.3d 1032, 1036 (Pa. 2011)
(citing Pennsylvania's long-standing policy that
precludes hybrid representation). The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court has expressly stated that "[c]onsistent with Rule
[of Criminal Procedure] 576, decisional law from this Court
has clarified Commonwealth policy regarding hybrid
representation. No defendant has a right to hybrid
representation, either at trial or on appeal."
Commonwealth v. Padilla,80 A.3d 1238, 1259 (Pa.
2013) (italics in original, citations omitted), cert,
denied, Padilla v. Pennsylvania, ___ U.S. ___,
134 S.Ct. 2725 (2014). "Our ...