Com. v. Steele, C. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • J-S41039-22
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    CHAD ELLIS STEELE                          :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 914 MDA 2022
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-22-CR-0001215-2021
    BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                      FILED: JANUARY 12, 2023
    Appellant, Chad Ellis Steele, appeals from the April 13, 2022, judgment
    of sentence of 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment imposed after a jury found him
    guilty of strangulation.1      Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3), we remand this
    case for the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement and a responsive Rule
    1925(a) opinion.
    The factual history of this matter is not relevant to our disposition and
    need not be reiterated here. The relevant procedural history, as gleaned from
    the certified record, is as follows: On January 18, 2022, Appellant proceeded
    to a jury trial and was subsequently found guilty of one count of strangulation.
    ____________________________________________
    *   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718(a)(1).
    J-S41039-22
    As noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment
    on April 13, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence
    motion that was ultimately denied by the trial court on June 15, 2022. This
    timely appeal followed on June 22, 2022.2
    On July 5, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
    statement of errors complained of on appeal in accordance with Rule 1925(b),
    within 21 days. Appellant, who is represented by counsel,3 has attached a
    concise statement to his appellate brief which is timed-stamped as filed with
    the Superior Court Middle District on July 19, 2022. See Appellant’s brief at
    Exhibit A. However, our review of the certified docket in this matter reveals
    that Appellant’s counsel failed to properly file a concise statement with the
    Dauphin Country Clerk of Courts.
    On August 17, 2022, the trial court issued a “Statement in Lieu of
    Opinion” requesting that this matter be remanded in accordance with Rule
    1925(c)(3),and indicating it would not be filing a responsive opinion until
    directed to do so by this Court.          Trial court opinion, 8/17/22 at 1.   The
    ____________________________________________
    2 Although Appellant purports to appeal “from the Judgment of Sentence
    imposed on June 15, 2022,” and counsel attached the June 15, 2022 order
    denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion to the docketing statement, the
    record clearly indicates that the sentence was imposed on April 13, 2022. We
    remind counsel that “[i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the
    judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions.”
    See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 
    788 A.2d 408
    , 410 n.2 (Pa.Super.
    2001) (en banc), appeal denied, 
    800 A.2d 932
     (Pa. 2002).
    3   Sarah Lockwood, Esq.
    -2-
    J-S41039-22
    Commonwealth has also requested that this matter be remanded for the filing
    of a Rule 1925(b) statement and the preparation of a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
    See Commonwealth’s brief at 4-5.
    Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
    A.    Did the Commonwealth commit a Constitutional
    violation   which    undermined    the   truth
    determining process by failing to disclose the
    material   witness    bail  placed   on    the
    Commonwealth’s lead witness and alleged
    victim, Yashira Pacheco?
    B.    Whether the trial court erred in accepting the
    jury’s verdict when the verdict was against the
    weight of the evidence?
    Appellant’s brief at 4 (capitalization omitted).
    Preliminarily, we agree with both the trial court and the Commonwealth
    that our review of Appellant’s substantive claims is hampered by the lack of a
    properly filed Rule 1925(b) statement and responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.
    This Court has long recognized that a counsel’s failure to file a court-
    ordered Rule 1925(b) statement is attributable to per se ineffective
    assistance rather than a dereliction on Appellant’s part. See Commonwealth
    v. Burton, 
    973 A.2d 428
    , 432 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc) (stating, “[t]he
    complete failure to file the [Rule] 1925 concise statement is per se
    ineffectiveness because it is without reasonable basis designed to effectuate
    the client’s interest and waives all issues on appeal.”).
    Pursuant to Rule 1925(c)(3), where counsel fails to file a Rule 1925(b)
    statement on behalf of his client, and this Court is convinced that counsel has
    -3-
    J-S41039-22
    been per se ineffective in this regard, we are compelled to remand for the
    filing of a nunc pro tunc statement. Specifically, Rule 1925(c)(3) states:
    If an appellant represented by counsel in a criminal
    case was ordered to file and serve a Statement and
    either failed to do so, or untimely filed or served a
    Statement, such that the appellate court is convinced
    that counsel has been per se ineffective, and the trial
    court did not file an opinion, the appellate court may
    remand for appointment of new counsel, the filing or
    service of a Statement nunc pro tunc, and the
    preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3).
    Here, it is undisputed that Appellant counsel failed to properly file a Rule
    1925(b) concise statement with the Dauphin Country Clerk of Courts.
    Accordingly, we conclude that counsel has provided per se ineffective
    assistance of counsel pursuant to subsection (c)(3). See 
    id.
     Moreover, since
    the trial court’s opinion did not address Appellant’s substantive claims,
    a remand to the trial court for a responsive opinion is warranted.           See
    Commonwealth v. 
    Thompson, 39
     A.3d 335, 340-341 (Pa.Super. 2012).
    Based on the foregoing, we remand for the filing of a compliant Rule
    1925(b) statement within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, and for a
    supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion to be filed 120 days thereafter. We decline
    to require the trial court to appoint Appellant new counsel, although the trial
    court may do so if necessary.
    Case remanded      for    further   proceedings    consistent   with    this
    memorandum. Panel Jurisdiction Retained.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 914 MDA 2022

Judges: Stevens, P.J.E.

Filed Date: 1/12/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023