Case Information
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA [1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHNNY T. BRANFORD
Appellant No. MDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 2016 the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No: CP-06-CR-0002592-2015
BEFORE: OTT, STABILE, and PLATT,* JJ. FILED AUGUST 2017
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: Johnny T. Branford appeals from the November 2016 judgment of sentence entered the Court of Common Pleas Berks County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of third degree murder, theft by unlawful taking, access device fraud, possessing instruments of crime, unauthorized use automobile.' Because of Appellant's failure errors complained of matter for filing of statement nunc the preparation and court. [*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
' Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 2502(c), 3921(a), 4106(a)(1)(ii), 907(a), and respectively.
Following Appellant's counseled filing a notice of appeal, on December 2016, the trial court ordered him to file a Rule statement within 21 failed to comply. On May 19, 2017, Appellant's counsel filed in this Court an Anders2 brief, claiming that Appellant's convictions were supported sufficient evidence. On May 24, Appellant's counsel filed a petition to withdraw as counsel.
On the Commonwealth correctly points out that at no point did Appellant's counsel file a 1925(b) statement in accordance with the trial court's December 2016 order.
It is well -settled that failure a statement in criminal cases is se See ineffective assistance of counsel. Commonwealth v. McBride, 957 A.2d 752, 755-56 (Pa. Super. 2008). As a result, filing a nunc pro tunc under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3).3 Id. at 756. 1925(c)(3) provides:
If an appellant a criminal case was ordered a Statement failed do so such the appellate court is convinced Anders v. California, U.S. 738 (1967). note 1925(c)(4) also provides: criminal case, may file of serve judge intent Anders/McClendon brief If, upon lieu filing Statement. review of in Anders/McClendon brief, the appellate court believes that there are arguably meritorious issues review, those issues will not waived; instead, the appellate court may for Statement, pursuant or both. remand, the may, but not required to, replace appellant's counsel. has been se ineffective, the appellate shall Statement nunc pro tunc and the preparation and opinion judge. matter trial court and, within days of the
trial court's receipt of the record from the Superior Court Prothonotary, the trial court shall order Appellant nunc pro tunc. The trial court shall then prepare detailed 1925(a) within days of the filing of the 1925(b) statement. filing of the 1925(a) opinion, the returned this Court within At time, this Court may require the filing briefs.
Matter remanded with directions nunc opinion. Panel jurisdiction retained.