J -S10036-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

THOMAS GUILFORD 

Appellee 

Appellant No. 1534 EDA 2016 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence dated April 22, 2016 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000322-2015 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and SOLANO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY SOLANO, J.: FILED MAY 09, 2017 

Appellant, Thomas Guildford, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed by the trial court after it convicted him of illegal possession of a 

firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and illegally carrying a firearm 

in public in Philadelphia.' We affirm Appellant's convictions, but vacate the 

judgment of sentence. 

The trial court summarized the factual background underlying 

Appellant's convictions as follows: 

On November 26, 2014, Philadelphia Police Officers Tritz 

and D'Alesio received a radio call concerning a light blue two - door vehicle casing a jewelry store in the shopping strip mall 

near City Line and Haverford Avenues. The officers observed a 

car fitting that description pulling out of that location with its 

center brake light malfunctioning. When the officers activated 

their lights, the vehicle fled, making several quick turns and 

' 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106 and 6108, respectively. 
J -S10036-17 

striking two parked cars on the south side of Brentwood Road 

and then crashing into a parked car on the other side of 

Brentwood Road. During this car chase, [Appellant] could be 

observed in the back seat, removing the Muslim garb in which he 

was dressed. At that time, [Appellant] - the rear seat passenger 

of his two door sedan, jumped out of the vehicle and ran 

westbound on Brentwood Road. [Appellant] was captured in the 

middle of the block by two other responding patrolmen. Officers 

Tritz and D'Alesio took the driver and front seat passenger into 

custody, observing as they did, a loaded silver Colt 

semiautomatic handgun on the rear seat passenger -side 

floorboard, where [Appellant] had been seated. From the front 

passenger seat floorboard a handgun was recovered [and] later 

determined to be a BB gun. Rubber surgical gloves were found 

on the floor beneath the driver. Also retrieved from the back 

seat was the Muslim garb [Appellant] was seen removing during 

the car chase. It was later determined that [Appellant] was the 

owner of the fleeing vehicle. The prosecution submitted a 

Certificate of Non-Licensure as well as a criminal extract showing 

that [Appellant] was not licensed as well as ineligible to possess 

the weapon. 

Trial Ct. Op., 7/18/16, at 3 (citations to notes of testimony omitted). 

Appellant was charged with the aforementioned firearms violations and 

convicted following a December 9, 2015 bench trial. On April 22, 2016, the 

trial court sentenced him to 5 to 10 years' incarceration for illegally 

possessing a firearm, with a consecutive 5 years' probation for carrying a 

firearm without a license, and a concurrent 5 years' probation for illegally 

carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia. He filed a motion for 

reconsideration of sentence on April 29, 2016 in which he asserted that his 

convictions were against the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence and 

his sentence was excessive. Before the trial court ruled on his motion for 

-2 
J -S10036-17 

reconsideration of sentence, Appellant filed a notice of appeal.2 On May 21, 

2016, the trial court denied Appellant's motion for reconsideration of 

sentence. That same day, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a 

statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). Appellant complied by filing a statement which in its entirety 

reads: 

STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

I. Whether the weight of the evidence was enough to sustain 

a conviction pursuant to Rule 607. The evidence was not 

sufficient to sustain a conviction pursuant to Rule 606 and 

the weight of the evidence was not enough to sustain a 

conviction pursuant to Rule 607. 

II. The Trial Court erred by imposing an "excessive sentence" 

violating the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 

9701 et seq. by not following the general principle that the 

sentence imposed should call for 1) confinement consistent 

with the protection of the public, 2) the gravity of the 

offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim; 

and 3) the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, and 

amounted to an abuse of discretion. See, 42 Pa. C.S. § 

9721(B). 

Statement of Errors and Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), 6/13/16. 

2 Although the trial court did not enter its order denying Appellant's motion 

for reconsideration of sentence until May 31, 2016, Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) 

provides "A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination 

but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after 

such entry and on the day thereof." 

-3 
J -S10036-17 

Conversely, in his appellate brief, Appellant presents the following 

three issues: 

1. Whether the Court improperly denied the defense Motion to 

Dismiss pursuant to 600(A)(2)(a)? 

2. Whether the Court improperly denied the defense Motion to 

Suppress Arrest and Evidence? 

3. Whether there is needed a Correction of Sentence for Credit 

for Time Served? 

Appellant's Brief at 7. 

The three issues briefed and argued by Appellant on appeal are absent 

from his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.3 Clearly the first two issues - 

asserting errors pertaining to Rule 600 and suppression - are being raised 

for the first time, as shown by the certified record as well as the trial court's 

Rule 1925(a) opinion discussing the sufficiency and weight issues set forth in 

Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/18/16, at 4-6. 

The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that "[i]ssues not 

included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this [Rule 1925] (b)(4) are waived." Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); 

see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 917 A.2d 848, 855 (Pa. Super. 2007), 

citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (allegation not 

contained in appellant's court -ordered Rule 1925(b) statement of matters 

complained of on appeal is waived for purposes of appeal). The Rule 

3 Appellant has had the same counsel throughout this case. 

-4 
J -S10036-17 

requiring a defendant to provide a trial court with a statement identifying in 

a concise manner the issue sought to be pursued on appeal is intended to 

aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the 

defendant plans to raise on appeal, and thus is a crucial component of 

the appellate process. Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 A.2d 34, 36-37 

(Pa. Super. 2002). For these reasons, we are constrained to conclude that 

we cannot review Appellant's first two issues as they have not been properly 

preserved and are therefore waived. 

With regard to Appellant's third issue asserting that he is entitled to 

sentencing credit for time served, we note that in his motion for 

reconsideration, in addition to raising the sufficiency and weight of the 

evidence, Appellant asked the trial court to consider a reduced, county 

sentence; he did not mention credit for time served. Mot. for 

Reconsideration of Sentence, 4/29/16, at 3-4. Also, Appellant has failed to 

include a Pa.R.A.P 2119(f) statement in his brief relative to allowance of 

appeal from the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Nonetheless, his 

claim for credit for time served cannot be waived because it "goes to the 

legality of [Appellant's] sentence." See Commonwealth's Brief at 19, citing 

Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723, 725 (Pa. Super. 1992) 

(failure to award credit for time -served implicates the legality of a sentence). 

See also Commonwealth v. Davis, 852 A.2d 392, 399 (Pa. Super. 2004) 

("An attack upon the court's failure to give credit for time served is an attack 

-5 
J -S10036-17 

upon the legality of the sentence and cannot be waived"), appeal denied, 

868 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2005). 

The Commonwealth states that "[a] thorough review of the record 

reveals that [Appellant] requested a time -credit in his counsel's sentencing 

recommendation but that the trial court did not declare the grant of the 

credit during the imposition of his sentence or incorporate a reference to a 

time -credit in his sentencing order (N.T. 4/22/16, 9) ('My argument on him 

is that, Your Honor, that he be credited for time served')." Commonwealth's 

Brief at 19. The Commonwealth adds that it "would not have opposed a 

remand for the limited purpose of amending [Appellant's] sentencing order 

to reflect his entitlement to any applicable credit for time -served." Id. at 

20. In view of the foregoing, we vacate Appellant's judgment of sentence 

and remand for the trial court to issue a sentencing order which takes into 

account Appellant's entitlement to credit for time served. 

In sum, we affirm Appellant's convictions because he has failed to 

preserve his first and second issues for appellate review. With respect to 

Appellant's third issue, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand 

solely for the court to impose a judgment of sentence which reflects 

Appellant's entitlement to credit for time served. 

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for the limited 

purpose stated in this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

-6 
J -S10036-17 

Judgment Entered. 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 5/9/2017 

-7