J-S47009-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIRRELL ANDRE MOON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1375 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 17, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-CR-0002070-2017

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Appellant, Tirrell Andre Moon, appeals from the July 17, 2018 Judgment 

of Sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas following 

his non-jury conviction of one count each of Possession of Firearm Prohibited, 

Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, Resisting Arrest, Possession of 

Drug Paraphernalia, and two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance.1 

After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. On 

May 8, 2018, the trial court convicted Appellant of the above crimes. The 

court deferred sentencing pending a pre-sentence investigation.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 5104, and 35 P.S. §§ 780-

113(a)(32) and 780-113(a)(16), respectively.
J-S47009-19

- 2 -

Following consideration of the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report and 

argument of counsel, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 

four to eight years’ incarceration,2 and a consecutive term of five years’ 

probation. Appellant did not file a Post-Sentence Motion.

Appellant timely appealed. On August 20, 2018, the trial court ordered 

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement within 21 days. More than 21 

days later, on October 11, 2018, Appellant, through Attorney Wendy J. F. 

Grella, filed an “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file Statement of 

Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).” The trial court granted 

Appellant’s Motion on October 15, 2018, and ordered Appellant to file a Rule 

1925(b) Statement within 30 days. Appellant failed to file a Rule 1925(b) 

Statement within 30 days of October 15, 2018, and, instead, sought, and 

received, two more extensions of time. 

On January 29, 2019, Attorney Grella filed an “Unopposed Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel and Request for Extension of Time.” On February 4, 

2019, the court granted Attorney Grella’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel and 

filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion. In its February 4, 2019 Rule 1925(a) 

Opinion, the court indicated it would not file a substantive Memorandum 

Opinion because Appellant’s counsel had filed a Statement of Intention to file 

an Anders/McClendon Brief, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). This 

____________________________________________

2 This is a mitigated range sentence.
J-S47009-19

- 3 -

Court’s review of the record reveals that Attorney Grella filed neither a Rule 

1925(b) nor a Rule 1925(c)(4) Statement.

On March 13, 2019, this Court vacated the trial court’s February 4, 2019

Order granting Attorney Grella’s Motion to Withdraw as the filing of the instant 

appeal had divested the trial court of jurisdiction. This Court further directed 

counsel to “comply with the procedural requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 

1981), and their progeny by filing an application to withdraw accompanied by 

an Anders brief in this Court, providing copies of the same to Appellant, and 

advising Appellant of his rights pursuant to Commonwealth v. Millisock, 

873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005).” Order, 3/13/19. Counsel did not, however, 

file an Anders Brief. Instead, she filed an advocate’s Brief, in which Appellant

challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence and raises a hybrid 

sufficiency and weight of the evidence claim. See Appellant’s Brief at 5. For 

the following reasons we decline to reach the merits of Appellant’s issues. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(c)(3) provides: 

If an appellant in a criminal case was ordered to file a Statement 

and failed to do so, such that the appellate court is convinced that 

counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall 

remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the 

preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). In Commonwealth v. Scott, this Court held that 

where the “[a]ppellant has completely failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement 

as directed . . . counsel has been per se ineffective.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S47009-19

- 4 -

Scott, 952 A.2d 1190, 1192 (Pa. Super. 2008). In Scott, this court remanded 

for preparation of a Rule 1925(b) Statement and a Rule 1925(a) Opinion 

because the trial court had not prepared a Rule 1925(a) Opinion. Id.

Here, appellate counsel disregarded the trial court’s Orders directing her 

to file a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, and, therefore, has 

been per se ineffective. Although the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 

it did not address the issues that Appellant seeks to raise on appeal because 

appellate counsel failed to alert the trial court to the errors complained of on 

appeal. Therefore, we are constrained to remand to the trial court for counsel 

to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement nunc pro tunc within 30 days of this Order 

and for the trial court to file a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion within 30 days 

thereafter. 

Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.