J-S41039-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHAD ELLIS STEELE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 914 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2022

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0001215-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JANUARY 12, 2023

Appellant, Chad Ellis Steele, appeals from the April 13, 2022, judgment 

of sentence of 21⁄2 to 5 years’ imprisonment imposed after a jury found him 

guilty of strangulation.

1

 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3), we remand this 

case for the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement and a responsive Rule

1925(a) opinion.

The factual history of this matter is not relevant to our disposition and 

need not be reiterated here. The relevant procedural history, as gleaned from 

the certified record, is as follows: On January 18, 2022, Appellant proceeded 

to a jury trial and was subsequently found guilty of one count of strangulation. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2718(a)(1).
J-S41039-22

- 2 -

As noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 21⁄2 to 5 years’ imprisonment 

on April 13, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence 

motion that was ultimately denied by the trial court on June 15, 2022. This 

timely appeal followed on June 22, 2022.

2

On July 5, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal in accordance with Rule 1925(b),

within 21 days. Appellant, who is represented by counsel,

3 has attached a 

concise statement to his appellate brief which is timed-stamped as filed with 

the Superior Court Middle District on July 19, 2022. See Appellant’s brief at 

Exhibit A. However, our review of the certified docket in this matter reveals 

that Appellant’s counsel failed to properly file a concise statement with the 

Dauphin Country Clerk of Courts.

On August 17, 2022, the trial court issued a “Statement in Lieu of 

Opinion” requesting that this matter be remanded in accordance with Rule 

1925(c)(3),and indicating it would not be filing a responsive opinion until 

directed to do so by this Court. Trial court opinion, 8/17/22 at 1. The 

____________________________________________

2 Although Appellant purports to appeal “from the Judgment of Sentence 

imposed on June 15, 2022,” and counsel attached the June 15, 2022 order 

denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion to the docketing statement, the 

record clearly indicates that the sentence was imposed on April 13, 2022. We 

remind counsel that “[i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the 

judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions.” 

See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa.Super. 

2001) (en banc), appeal denied, 800 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2002).

3 Sarah Lockwood, Esq.
J-S41039-22

- 3 -

Commonwealth has also requested that this matter be remanded for the filing 

of a Rule 1925(b) statement and the preparation of a Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

See Commonwealth’s brief at 4-5.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

A. Did the Commonwealth commit a Constitutional 

violation which undermined the truth 

determining process by failing to disclose the 

material witness bail placed on the 

Commonwealth’s lead witness and alleged 

victim, Yashira Pacheco?

B. Whether the trial court erred in accepting the 

jury’s verdict when the verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence?

Appellant’s brief at 4 (capitalization omitted).

Preliminarily, we agree with both the trial court and the Commonwealth 

that our review of Appellant’s substantive claims is hampered by the lack of a

properly filed Rule 1925(b) statement and responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

This Court has long recognized that a counsel’s failure to file a courtordered Rule 1925(b) statement is attributable to per se ineffective 

assistance rather than a dereliction on Appellant’s part. See Commonwealth 

v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 432 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc) (stating, “[t]he 

complete failure to file the [Rule] 1925 concise statement is per se

ineffectiveness because it is without reasonable basis designed to effectuate 

the client’s interest and waives all issues on appeal.”). 

Pursuant to Rule 1925(c)(3), where counsel fails to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement on behalf of his client, and this Court is convinced that counsel has 
J-S41039-22

- 4 -

been per se ineffective in this regard, we are compelled to remand for the 

filing of a nunc pro tunc statement. Specifically, Rule 1925(c)(3) states:

If an appellant represented by counsel in a criminal 

case was ordered to file and serve a Statement and 

either failed to do so, or untimely filed or served a 

Statement, such that the appellate court is convinced 

that counsel has been per se ineffective, and the trial 

court did not file an opinion, the appellate court may 

remand for appointment of new counsel, the filing or 

service of a Statement nunc pro tunc, and the 

preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3).

Here, it is undisputed that Appellant counsel failed to properly file a Rule 

1925(b) concise statement with the Dauphin Country Clerk of Courts. 

Accordingly, we conclude that counsel has provided per se ineffective 

assistance of counsel pursuant to subsection (c)(3). See id. Moreover, since 

the trial court’s opinion did not address Appellant’s substantive claims, 

a remand to the trial court for a responsive opinion is warranted. See

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 340-341 (Pa.Super. 2012).

Based on the foregoing, we remand for the filing of a compliant Rule 

1925(b) statement within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, and for a 

supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion to be filed 120 days thereafter. We decline 

to require the trial court to appoint Appellant new counsel, although the trial

court may do so if necessary.

Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

memorandum. Panel Jurisdiction Retained.