Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Beck](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808605/com-v-deas-c/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Deas, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1862 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Beck

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Beck

J-S47040-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
COREY DEAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1862 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 24, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002689-2025

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2026

Corey Deas (“Deas”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following his

negotiated guilty plea to one count of retail theft. 1 Deas’ counsel, Attorney

Brooks T. Thompson (“Counsel”), seeks to withdraw from representation

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Upon review,

we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Deas’ judgment of

sentence.

On April 21, 2025, Deas, with two codefendants, stole approximately

$2,626.91 in Nike merchandise from a DICK’S Sporting Goods in Abington

---

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).
J-S47040-25

Township. Deas and his codefendants fled the scene in a black Nissan, which

police confirmed as stolen.2 The vehicle crashed soon after fleeing the scene.

The police located the stolen merchandise and a loaded firearm, which they

also confirmed as stolen, from the inside of the vehicle. Later the same day,

the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Deas and charged him

with multiple crimes stemming from the incident.

On June 24, 2025, the matter was originally listed for a bail-reduction

hearing. However, the parties instead presented a negotiated guilty plea to

retail theft, graded as a felony in the third degree, with the remaining counts

to be nol prossed. The parties also agreed to a sentence of time served to

twenty-three months of incarceration, with credit for time served from April

21, 2025 through June 24, 2025. Following a colloquy, the trial court accepted

the plea and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Deas did not file any post-

sentence motions.

Instead, Deas filed a notice of appeal. On July 11, 2025, the trial court

ordered Deas to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty-one days. Counsel filed a

statement indicating that he intended to file a brief pursuant to

Anders/Santiago in lieu of a 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4)

(“If counsel intends to seek to withdraw in a criminal case pursuant to

---

2 Deas was identified as a passenger of vehicle.

-2-
J-S47040-25

Anders/Santiago … counsel shall file of record and serve on the judge a

statement of intent to withdraw in lieu of filing a Statement.”).

On October 24, 2025, Counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to

withdraw as counsel in this Court. When faced with an Anders brief, we may

not review the merits of the underlying issues or allow withdrawal without first

deciding whether counsel has complied with all requirements set forth in

Anders and Santiago. Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879 (Pa.

Super. 2014). There are mandates that counsel seeking to withdraw pursuant

to Anders must follow, which arise because a criminal defendant has a

constitutional right to a direct appeal and to be represented by counsel for the

pendency of that appeal. Commonwealth v. Woods, 939 A.2d 896, 898

(Pa. Super. 2007). We have summarized these requirements as follows:

Direct appeal counsel seeking to withdraw under Anders
must file a petition averring that, after a conscientious
examination of the record, counsel finds the appeal to be wholly
frivolous. Counsel must also file an Anders brief setting forth
issues that might arguably support the appeal along with any
other issues necessary for the effective appellate presentation
thereof.

Anders counsel must also provide a copy of the Anders
petition and brief to the appellant, advising the appellant of the
right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional
points worthy of this Court’s attention.

If counsel does not fulfill the aforesaid technical
requirements of Anders, this Court will deny the petition to
withdraw and remand the case with appropriate instructions (e.g.,
directing counsel either to comply with Anders or file an
advocate’s brief on [a]ppellant’s behalf).

Id. (citations omitted).

-3-
J-S47040-25

Additionally, our Supreme Court set forth precisely what an Anders

brief must contain:

[T]he Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s
petition to withdraw … 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
the record, controlling case law, and/or the statutes on point that
have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

If counsel has substantially complied with the above requirements, it is

then this Court’s duty to conduct its own review of the record to determine

whether there are any other nonfrivolous issues that the appellant could raise

on appeal. Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc).

Instantly, we conclude that Counsel has complied with the requirements

outlined above. Counsel filed a petition with this Court stating that after

reviewing the record, he finds this appeal to be wholly frivolous. Petition to

Withdraw as Counsel, 10/24/2025. In conformance with Santiago, Counsel’s

brief includes summaries of the facts and procedural history of the case. See

Anders Brief at 6-8. Additionally, Counsel explains how “there are no

nonfrivolous issues that can be raised,” and includes discussion of, and citation

to, relevant authority in support of his conclusion. Id. at 10-18. Finally,

Counsel attached to his petition to withdraw the letter he sent to Deas, which

-4-
J-S47040-25

enclosed Counsel’s petition to withdraw and Anders brief. Petition to

Withdraw as Counsel, 10/24/2025, Exhibit A. Counsel’s letter advised Deas

of his rights to proceed pro se or with private counsel, and to raise any

additional issues that he deems worthy of this Court’s consideration. Id.

Because Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements to

withdraw from representation, we turn our attention to the issues Counsel

raised in the Anders brief: (1) a claim that Deas’ guilty plea was not knowing

and voluntary; (2) a challenge to the discretionary aspects of Deas’ sentence;

(3) a challenge to the legality of his sentence; and (4) a claim that the trial

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Anders Brief at 10-17. Deas has

not filed a response.

Guilty Plea

Deas first contends that his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing

as required by law. See Anders Brief at 11-14. The law is clear, though,

that “[a] defendant wishing to challenge the voluntariness of a guilty plea on

direct appeal must either object during the plea colloquy or file a motion to

withdraw the plea within ten days of sentencing.” Commonwealth v.

Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Pa.R.Crim.P.

720(B)(1)(a)(i). Failure to do so results in waiver. Lincoln, 72 A.3d at 610.

The record reflects that Deas failed to challenge the validity of his guilty

plea at his plea colloquy, sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion. Therefore,

this issue is waived, see id., and we agree his first claim is frivolous. See

-5-
J-S47040-25

Commonwealth v. Cook, 175 A.3d 345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2017) (finding that

waived issues raised on appeal are frivolous); see also Commonwealth v.

Cox, 231 A.3d 1011, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining that precedent does

not permit “this Court to address issues that were not properly preserved in

the trial court” and “the mere filing of an Anders brief and petition to withdraw

will not serve to resuscitate claims that were already waived upon the filing of

the notice of appeal”).3

Discretionary Aspects of Sentencing

Next, Deas challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Anders Brief at 14-15. “The right to appellate review of the discretionary

aspects of a sentence is not absolute and must be considered a petition for

permission to appeal.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 312 A.3d 366, 376 (Pa.

Super. 2024) (citation omitted). To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to review

---

3 In any event, the record here establishes that Deas entered his guilty plea

knowingly and voluntarily. He engaged in both written and oral colloquies,
setting forth the factual basis of the plea; was fully advised of the crime to
which he was pleading guilty and the potential sentence he could receive, his
right to a jury trial, the presumption of innocence, and the trial court’s power
to reject the plea agreement; and Deas confirmed his understanding. See
N.T., 6/24/2025, at 3-9; Written Guilty Colloquy, 6/24/2025, at 1-10;
Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 782 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“A valid plea
colloquy must delve into six areas: 1) the nature of the charges, 2) the factual
basis of the plea, 3) the right to a jury trial, 4) the presumption of innocence,
5) the sentencing ranges, and 6) the plea court’s power to deviate from any
recommended sentence.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Commonwealth v. Felix, 303 A.3d 816, 821 (Pa. Super. 2023) (noting a
defendant is bound by the statements he makes at his plea colloquy and may
not later assert claims for withdrawing the plea that contradict statements he
made when entering the plea).

-6-
J-S47040-25

a discretionary sentencing challenge, an appellant must satisfy a four-part

test:

(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the
time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion; (2) the appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set forth a concise
statement of reasons relied upon for the allowance of his appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises a
substantial question for our review.

Id. at 376-77 (citation and brackets omitted).

The record again reflects that Deas waived this claim, as he failed to

raise it at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v.

Cartrette, 83 A.2d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that failure to

challenge the discretionary aspects of sentencing at sentencing or in a post-

sentence motion results in waiver). Moreover, Deas cannot challenge the

discretionary aspects of his sentence because he entered a negotiated guilty

plea that included sentencing terms accepted by the trial court. See

Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(“When a negotiated plea includes sentencing terms, … the defendant’s

knowing and voluntary acceptance of those terms rightly extinguishes the

ability to challenge a sentence the defendant knew was a proper consequence

of his plea.”). Accordingly, the claim is frivolous.

Legality of Sentence

Deas further challenges the legality of his sentence. See Anders Brief

at 15-16.

-7-
J-S47040-25

A claim that implicates the fundamental legal authority of
the court to impose a particular sentence constitutes a challenge
to the legality of the sentence. If no statutory authorization exists
for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to
correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated. When the
legality of a sentence is at issue on appeal, our standard of review
is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Prince, 320 A.3d 698, 700 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation

omitted).

Deas pled guilty to retail theft, which is graded as a felony of the third

degree. The statutory maximum sentence that can be lawfully imposed for a

felony of the third degree is seven years in prison. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(3).

The sentence imposed by the trial court—time served to twenty-three months

of incarceration—falls well below the statutory limit. Thus, we agree with

Counsel that any challenge to the legality of the sentence imposed would be

frivolous.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Lastly, Deas raises a claim that the trial court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. See Anders Brief at 16-17.

When appealing from a judgment of sentence entered
pursuant to a guilty plea, a defendant may challenge the
jurisdiction of a court. The court’s subject matter jurisdiction is
an issue that is not susceptible to waiver, and it may be raised for
the first time at any stage of the proceedings. Whether a court
has subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that poses a pure
question of law, subject to a de novo standard of review.

Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the competency of a
court to hear and decide the type of controversy presented. A
court’s competency hinges upon a demonstration that a criminal

-8-
J-S47040-25

act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law.

Matters arising from a violation of Pennsylvania’s Crimes
Code are entrusted to the original jurisdiction of the courts of
common pleas for resolution. Every jurist within that tier of the
unified judicial system is competent to hear and decide a matter
arising out of the Crimes Code.

Commonwealth v. Washington, 344 A.3d 417, 419 (Pa. Super. 2025)

(cleaned up).

The Commonwealth charged Deas with violations of the Pennsylvania

Crimes Code for crimes committed in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. In

pleading guilty, Deas admitted that he committed the retail theft at a DICK’s

Sporting Goods Store in Abington, which is located in Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania. N.T., 6/24/2025, at 8. The trial court was thereby vested with

jurisdiction over the offenses for which Deas was sentenced. Thus, this claim

is frivolous.

Our independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues that

Deas could raise on appeal. See Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272. We therefore

grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm Deas’ judgment of sentence.

Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/13/2026

-9-