¶ 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of York County aftеr a jury convicted Appellant on charges of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, indecent assault, and furnishing alcohol to a minor. On appeal, Appellant raisеs two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 2 Appellant was' arrested and charged on allegations that he committed a single act of sexual аssault by forced anal intercourse upon a nineteen year old male while in Appellant’s residence. Convicted on all charges at the conclusion of his September 10, 2002 jury trial, Appellant underwеnt a Megan’s Law and Sentencing hearing where the court determined that he was not a sexually violent predator. The court therefore imposed an aggregate sentence of six and one-half yеars’ to thirteen years’ imprisonment.
¶ 3 On March 26, 2003, the trial court appointed present counsel for Aрpellant after trial counsel had filed a petition alleging his own ineffectiveness. The trial court granted present counsel’s April 8, 2003 petition for reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc, and counsel timely filed notice of appeal on April 10, 2003. The trial court thereafter ordered counsel to filе a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within fоurteen days of the April 10, 2003 order. The docket sheet reflects that counsel was furnished with the court’s order on April 14, 2003.
¶ 4 Fourteen days later, on April 28, 2003, counsel filed with the court a motion for extension of time in which tо file the 1925(b) statement. The motion states that
¶ 5 On June 16, 2003, counsel filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal alleging two issues of ineffectiveness of counsel and citing where in the trial transcript each act of ineffectivеness took place. In addition, counsel cited this Court’s decision in Middleton v. Middleton,
¶ 6 The trial court responded with a “Supplement to Trial Court’s 1925(a) Statement” which denied аny holding in Middleton recognizing authority in trial courts to extend the time for fifing concise statements under Rule 1925. Neverthelеss, the court no longer advocated waiver of issues and, instead, addressed Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims, stating:
Nonetheless the Trial Court observes that [Appellant] now attempts to raise allegations of ineffective assistance of Trial Counsel. The Trial Court would observe that in the proсedural posture this case is currently in we have been precluded from establishing an approрriate record for, and making inquiry into, ineffective assistance of Trial Counsel issues.
Supplement to Trial Court’s 1925(a) Opinion at 5. Despite its assertion of a deficient record, however, the court provided its observations of the case and asked this Court to dismiss Appellant’s issues on their merits.
¶7 When a trial judge orders a timely statement to be filed an appellant must comply or risk waiver. Waiver is required when an ordеred statement is not filed, Commonwealth v. Lord,
¶ 8 Turning now to Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims, we find that they fall squarely under the general rule espoused in Commonwealth v. Grant,
¶ 10 Judgment of Sentence is affirmed.
Notes
. The trial court’s eventual treatment of the belated filing rendered the dispute over Middleton moot.