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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 disposi tional 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 appe al. 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, alleg ing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of robbery. On June 25, 2013, 109 days after the March 8, 2013 di spositional order, the juvenile court issued an amended order adj udicating S.M.J-S040 23

- 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 In an unpublished memorandum filed on April 8, 2014, this Court addressed a jurisdictional issue concerning the juvenile cou rt’s amended order adjudicating S.M. delinquent of conspiracy rather than robbery. As noted above, the juvenile court purported to amend t he dispositional order to change the criminal act underlying the adjudication of delinquency more than thirty days after the order was entered and aft er the appeal was filed. In our prior decision, this Court concluded that the juv enile 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 cour t upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order w ithin 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termi nation of any term of court, if no appeal from such order has been t aken or allowed.J-S040 23

- 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 mo dify its order. Commonwealth v. Martz , 926 A.2d 514, 525 (Pa. Super. 2007).

N evertheless, we are cognizant that the court has “inheri t [sic] powers to amend its records, to correct mistakes of th e clerk or other officer of the court, inadvertencies of co unsel, or supply defects or omissions in the record, even after the lapse of th e term.” In re K.R.B. , 851 A.2d 914, 918 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). “Under limited circumstances, even wh ere 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 t o adjudicate S.M. delinquent of conspiracy and not robbe ry. 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 irrel evant). Therefore, in the case at bar, while the juvenile cou rt was permitted to correct a patent mistake, we conclude that changing the criminal act underlying the adjudication o f 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 thro ugh 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 il legal 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-S040 23

- 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 erroneo us about the juvenile court’s initial order. The juveni le court was not correcting an illegal sentence or amending a contrad ictory order; it changed the crime underlying S.M.’s adjudicat ion. What the juvenile court did was tantamount to a crimin al court changing the verdict while a case was on appeal. We can not conclude that the juvenile court was permitted to chang e its original order under the inherent powers described in Holmes

. Accordingly, the ju venile court’s amended order adjudicating S.M. delinquent of conspiracy is a nullity, and S.M. re mains adjudicated delinquent of robbery pursuant to the disp ositional order entered on March 8, 2013.

In re S.M. , 1023 EDA 2013, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Super. filed Apr il 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 f or the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion responding to S.M.’s origin al Pa.R.A. P. 1925(b) statement in which he challenged the adjudication of d elinquency for robbery. On June 25, 2014, the juvenile court filed its opinion, and the parties filed responsive briefs.J-S040 23

- 14

-5-

In its June 25, 2014 opinion, the juvenile court prov ides an explanation of the reason it amended the original or der and cites to In re

K.R.B. , 851 A.2d 914, 918 (Pa. Super. 2004). However, th is Court has already decided the issue as to whether the juvenile co urt 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 juv enile 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, nothi ng in the juvenile court’s June 25, 2014 opinion supports an adju dication 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 su stain S.M.’s adjudication for the crime of robbery. This C ourt cannot overlook the errors that occurred in the juvenile court or countena nce their correction after the thirty day period lapsed. Holmes , 933 A.2d at 66-67. For the reasons set forth above, the dispositional order adjud icating S.M. delinquent of robbery is reversed. Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished.J-S040 23

- 14

-6-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/23/2014