J-S04023-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

________________ 

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

IN RE: S.M. 

APPEAL OF: S.M., A JUVENILE 

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

: 

: 

: No. 1023 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2013, 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, 

Juvenile Division, at No. CP-39-JV-0000148-2013. 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., SHOGAN and FITZGERALD*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 

Appellant, S.M., a juvenile, appeals from the dispositional order 

entered on March 8, 2013, adjudicating him delinquent. We reverse. 

The record reveals that on March 8, 2013, following a hearing, the 

juvenile court adjudicated S.M. delinquent of robbery graded as a felony of 

the third degree. The juvenile court committed S.M. to the Abraxas 

Academy for juvenile male offenders. 

On April 4, 2013, S.M. filed a timely notice of appeal. On April 16, 

2013, the juvenile court directed S.M. to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). S.M. timely filed his 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on April 24, 2013, alleging that the evidence 

was insufficient to establish the elements of robbery. 

On June 25, 2013, 109 days after the March 8, 2013 dispositional 

order, the juvenile court issued an amended order adjudicating S.M. 
J-S04023-14

-2- 

delinquent of conspiracy to commit robbery as opposed to robbery. The 

juvenile court then directed S.M. to file an amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement challenging the conspiracy adjudication. S.M. dutifully complied 

and asserted the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication for 

criminal conspiracy. The juvenile court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion 

addressing this claim on August 5, 2013. 

In an unpublished memorandum filed on April 8, 2014, this Court 

addressed a jurisdictional issue concerning the juvenile court’s amended

order adjudicating S.M. delinquent of conspiracy rather than robbery. As 

noted above, the juvenile court purported to amend the dispositional order 

to change the criminal act underlying the adjudication of delinquency more 

than thirty days after the order was entered and after the appeal was filed. 

In our prior decision, this Court concluded that the juvenile court was 

without jurisdiction to take such action and in doing so, violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 

5505.1

 In that prior memorandum we stated as follows: 

 

1

 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 provides as follows: 

Modification of orders 

Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon 

notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 

days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any 

term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or 

allowed. 
J-S04023-14

-3- 

Therefore, once the thirty–day period announced in section 

5505 has expired or once a defendant files a notice of appeal, 

the trial court is without jurisdiction to alter or modify its order. 

Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514, 525 (Pa. Super. 

2007). 

 

Nevertheless, we are cognizant that the court has “inherit 

[sic] powers to amend its records, to correct mistakes of the 

clerk or other officer of the court, inadvertencies of counsel, or 

supply defects or omissions in the record, even after the lapse of 

the term.” In re K.R.B., 851 A.2d 914, 918 (Pa. Super. 2004) 

(citations omitted). “Under limited circumstances, even where 

the court would normally be divested of jurisdiction, a court may 

have the power to correct patent and obvious mistakes.” Id. 

(citation omitted). 

Here, the juvenile court alleged that its intent was to 

adjudicate S.M. delinquent of conspiracy and not robbery. 

Juvenile Court Opinion, 8/5/13, at 1. However, the intent of the 

juvenile court is irrelevant. See Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 

A.3d 1219 (Pa. 2013) (in considering alteration of an order 

under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505, the court’s intent is irrelevant). 

Therefore, in the case at bar, while the juvenile court was 

permitted to correct a patent mistake, we conclude that

changing the criminal act underlying the adjudication of 

delinquency after the appeal was filed was improper. See 

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) 

(discussing the type of errors that may be corrected through the 

court’s inherent powers despite the rule set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5505 and permitting the trial court to correct an illegal 

sentence).1 Additionally, the Holmes Court went on to clarify: 

Although the defendants before this court 

warrant relief under the inherent power of courts to

correct patent errors, we must also emphasize the 

limits of this power. This exception to the general 

rule of Section 5505 cannot expand to swallow the 

rule. In applying the exception to the cases at bar,

we note that it is the obviousness of the 

illegality, rather than the illegality itself, that 

triggers the court’s inherent power.
J-S04023-14

-4- 

Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66-67 (emphasis added). 

 

1 The two cases predominantly analyzed in Holmes

are: Commonwealth v. Cole, 263 A.2d 339, 341 

(Pa. 1970) (allowing the trial court to correct an 

order where it had granted the defendant’s motion 

for a new trial and arrest of judgment because the 

order was clearly antagonistic), and 

Commonwealth v. Klein, 781 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 

2001) (holding that a trial court had jurisdiction to

correct manifest error in the calculation of the 

defendant’s sentence notwithstanding a pending 

appeal). 

Here, there is nothing patently and obviously erroneous 

about the juvenile court’s initial order. The juvenile court was 

not correcting an illegal sentence or amending a contradictory 

order; it changed the crime underlying S.M.’s adjudication. 

What the juvenile court did was tantamount to a criminal court 

changing the verdict while a case was on appeal. We cannot 

conclude that the juvenile court was permitted to change its 

original order under the inherent powers described in Holmes. 

Accordingly, the juvenile court’s amended order adjudicating 

S.M. delinquent of conspiracy is a nullity, and S.M. remains 

adjudicated delinquent of robbery pursuant to the dispositional 

order entered on March 8, 2013. 

In re S.M., 1023 EDA 2013, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Super. filed April 8, 2014) 

(unpublished memorandum at 3-4). 

Additionally, due to the myriad procedural missteps in this matter, we 

remanded this matter to the juvenile court to allow for the filing of a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion responding to S.M.’s original Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement in which he challenged the adjudication of delinquency for 

robbery. On June 25, 2014, the juvenile court filed its opinion, and the 

parties filed responsive briefs. 
J-S04023-14

-5- 

In its June 25, 2014 opinion, the juvenile court provides an 

explanation of the reason it amended the original order and cites to In re 

K.R.B., 851 A.2d 914, 918 (Pa. Super. 2004). However, this Court has 

already decided the issue as to whether the juvenile court was merely 

correcting a patent mistake in the negative. In re S.M., (unpublished 

memorandum at 4). This Court has ruled the juvenile court’s amended 

order a nullity. Id. 

This Court, in our prior memorandum, directed the juvenile court prior 

to provide a basis for adjudicating S.M. delinquent of the crime of robbery. 

In re S.M., (unpublished memorandum at 4). Upon review, nothing in the 

juvenile court’s June 25, 2014 opinion supports an adjudication for the crime 

of robbery. Moreover, nothing in the record supports an adjudication of the 

crime of robbery. 

Accordingly, we conclude the evidence was insufficient to sustain 

S.M.’s adjudication for the crime of robbery. This Court cannot overlook the 

errors that occurred in the juvenile court or countenance their correction 

after the thirty day period lapsed. Holmes, 933 A.2d at 66-67. For the 

reasons set forth above, the dispositional order adjudicating S.M. delinquent 

of robbery is reversed. 

Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-S04023-14

-6- 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/23/2014