J-A25044-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TERON LEWIS,

Appellant No. 849 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 11, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-15-CR-0003255-2011

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2014

Appellant, Teron Lewis, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his jury conviction of criminal attempt to commit firstdegree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated assault-causing bodily injury 

with a deadly weapon, criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, 

and criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.1 We affirm. 

The background of this case is a protracted procedural quagmire. We 

take the relevant facts and procedural history from the trial court’s May 9, 

2013 opinion and our independent review of the record. On May 22, 2006, 

Appellant and co-conspirator Omega Peoples approached the victim, Odell 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), 903(c), and 903(c), 

respectively. 
J-A25044-14

- 2 -

Cannon, from two different directions as Mr. Cannon exited a house in 

Coatesville, Pennsylvania. A gunfight ensued, during which Appellant shot 

Mr. Cannon six times. Mr. Cannon was wearing body armor and he carried a 

revolver. He fired six shots at Mr. Peoples and Appellant, striking Peoples 

three times. Appellant fled from the scene and was later arrested. Mr. 

Peoples was found within minutes of the shooting, hiding under a nearby 

minivan. 

Appellant proceeded to a jury trial, and on October 19, 2012, the jury 

found him guilty of the above-stated offenses. The trial court ordered the 

preparation of a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, and on January 11, 

2013, it sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of not less than twentytwo and a half nor more than forty-five years’ incarceration. Appellant filed 

timely post-sentence motions, which the court denied on February 25, 2013 

following oral argument. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2 On March 21, 2013, the trial 

court entered an order directing Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant initially filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 14, 2013, 

purporting to appeal from the October 19, 2012 jury verdict. (See Notice of 

Appeal, 3/14/13, at 1). Appellant then evidently retained current counsel, 

who filed an amended notice of appeal on March 20, 2013, purporting to 

appeal from the court’s order denying his post-sentence motions. (See

Amended Notice of Appeal, 3/20/13, at 1). However, “a direct appeal in a 

criminal proceeding lies from the judgment of sentence.” Commonwealth 

v. Preacher, 827 A.2d 1235, 1236 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). 

Therefore, this appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence and not 

from the jury’s verdict or the court’s post-sentence order. See id. 
J-A25044-14

- 3 -

within twenty-one days, by April 11, 2013. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The 

order advised, in bold type, that “Any issue not properly included in the 

Statement shall be deemed waived.” (Concise Statement Order, 

3/21/13, at 1) (emphasis in original). Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) 

statement on April 17, 2013, six days late.3 The trial court entered a Rule 

1925(a) opinion on May 9, 2013. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 

On November 15, 2013, Appellant filed an application for relief4 with 

this Court (Application for Relief), requesting that we remand the case to the 

trial court to permit him to file a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement. 

(See Application for Relief, 11/15/13, at 1-2). Appellant averred that a 

supplemental filing was necessary because he omitted “a major issue” from 

the original Rule 1925(b) statement. (Id. at 1). In the Application for 

Relief, Appellant did not acknowledge or explain the untimeliness of his 

original Rule 1925(b) statement, nor did he specify the important issue he 

omitted from the statement. (See id. at 1-2). On December 6, 2013, this 

Court entered a per curiam order directing Appellant to provide written 

notice of the issue omitted from the original Rule 1925(b) statement; 

____________________________________________

3 On April 24, 2013, at the trial court’s direction, Appellant filed an amended 

concise statement correcting a typographical error pertaining to Appellant’s 

name contained in the original Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Trial Court 

Opinion, 5/09/13, at 3). 

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 123(a). 
J-A25044-14

- 4 -

Appellant subsequently submitted notice of two issues. (See Order, 

12/06/13, at 1; see also Notice, 12/17/13, at 1). On January 2, 2014, this 

Court filed a per curiam order granting the Application for Relief and 

remanding the case to the trial court. (See Order, 1/02/14, at 1). The 

order permitted Appellant to file a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement 

within thirty days of the filing date of the order, by February 3, 2014.5 (See

Order, 1/02/14, at 1). It also directed the trial court to prepare a 

supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion. (See id.). 

On February 4, 2014, one day past the thirty-day deadline set by this 

Court, Appellant filed a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement. In the

supplemental statement, Appellant raised five issues, four of which he did 

not include in the original Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Supplemental Rule 

1925(b) Statement, 2/04/14, at unnumbered pages 1-2; Rule 1925(b) 

Statement 4/17/13, at unnumbered pages 1-2). The trial court entered a 

supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion on February 11, 2014.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. [Whether] the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion 

in limine to exclude certain evidence that was more prejudicial 

than probative[?]

____________________________________________

5 The last day of the thirty-day period, February 1, 2014, fell on a Saturday. 

Therefore, Appellant had until that Monday to file the supplemental Rule 

1925(b) statement. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908.
J-A25044-14

- 5 -

2. [Whether] Appellant is entitled to an arrest of judgment for 

his convictions in this case where the Commonwealth failed to 

prove each and every element of the following crimes charged 

(criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to 

commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated 

assault, and aggravated assault) beyond a reasonable doubt 

thereby depriving the Appellant of his liberty without a fair trial 

and due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 

corresponding laws of this Commonwealth[?]

3. [Whether] the trial court erred by allowing Rahlik Gore to 

testify about and define the term “young boys” to the jury as it 

was more prejudicial than probative[?]

(Appellant’s Brief, at 4).

Before we may address the merits of Appellant’s issues, we must 

determine whether he properly preserved them for our review. Rule 

1925(b) provides, in relevant part:

(b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on 

appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trial court.—

If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal 

(“judge”) desires clarification of the errors complained of on 

appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to 

file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise 

statement of the errors complained of on appeal (“Statement”).

* * *

(2) Time for filing and service.—The judge shall allow the 

appellant at least 21 days from the date of the order’s entry on 

the docket for the filing and service of the Statement. Upon 

application of the appellant and for good cause shown, the judge 

may enlarge the time period initially specified or permit an 

amended or supplemental Statement to be filed. . . . In 

extraordinary circumstances, the judge may allow for the filing 

of a Statement or amended or supplemental Statement nunc pro 

tunc.
J-A25044-14

- 6 -

(3) Contents of order.—The judge’s order directing the 

filing and service of a Statement shall specify:

(i) the number of days after the date of entry of the 

judge’s order within which the appellant must file 

and serve the Statement;

(ii) that the Statement shall be filed of record;

(iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(1);

(iv) that any issue not properly included in the 

Statement timely filed and served pursuant to 

subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.

4) Requirements; waiver.

* * *

(vii) Issues not included in the Statement 

and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions 

of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2),(3),(4)(vii).

An en banc panel of this Court has held:

Our Supreme Court intended the holding in 

[Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)] to operate 

as a bright-line rule, such that “failure to comply with the 

minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in 

automatic waiver of the issues raised.” Commonwealth v. 

Schofield, . . . 888 A.2d 771, 774 ([Pa.] 2005) (emphasis 

added); see also [Commonwealth v.] Castillo, 888 A.2d 

[775, 780 (Pa. 2005)]. Given the automatic nature of this type 

of waiver, we are required to address the issue once it comes to 

our attention. Indeed, our Supreme Court does not countenance 

anything less than stringent application of waiver pursuant to 

Rule 1925(b): “[A] bright-line rule eliminates the potential for 

inconsistent results that existed prior to Lord, when . . . 

appellate courts had discretion to address or to waive issues 

raised in non-compliant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements.” Id. 
J-A25044-14

- 7 -

Succinctly put, it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to 

ignore the internal deficiencies of Rule 1925(b) statements. 

* * *

Stated simply, it is no longer within this Court’s discretion 

to review the merits of an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement 

based solely on the trial court’s decision to address the merits of 

those untimely raised issues. Under current precedent, even if a 

trial court ignores the untimeliness of a Rule 1925(b) statement 

and addresses the merits, those claims still must be considered 

waived: Whenever a trial court orders an appellant to file a 

concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal pursuant 

to Rule 1925(b) the appellant must comply in a timely manner. 

Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 

222, 224-25 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (emphases in original) (some 

citations and quotation marks omitted); see id. at 227 (holding that this 

Court cannot address merits of issues on appeal where appellant failed to 

timely file Rule 1925(b) statement). 

Here, the record reflects that, on March 21, 2013, the trial court issued 

an order in technical compliance with Rule 1925(b) requiring Appellant to file 

a statement “no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this 

order’s entry on the clerk’s docket.” (Order, 3/21/13, at 1). The order 

provided in bold type: “Any issue not properly included in the 

Statement shall be deemed waived.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). 

Appellant filed his untimely concise statement six days late, on April 17, 

2013. 

Appellant then filed an Application for Relief with this Court, which we 

granted based on counsel’s representation that he had omitted “a major 
J-A25044-14

- 8 -

issue” from the original Rule 1925(b) statement; he neglected to inform this 

Court that the original statement was untimely. (Application for Relief, 

11/15/13, at 1; see id. at 1-2). Although we granted the Application for 

Relief, Appellant failed to file the supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement 

within the thirty-day time-period prescribed by this Court. (See Order, 

1/02/14, at 1). Further, following remand, Appellant did not simply 

supplement his original Rule 1925(b) statement to include the “major issue” 

omitted from it; he filed a supplemental statement raising five issues, four of 

which were not included in the original statement. (Application for Relief, 

11/15/13, at 1; see also Supplemental Rule 1925(b) Statement, 2/04/14, 

at unnumbered pages 1-2). 

Based on this record, because Appellant did not timely file his Rule 

1925(b) statement or supplemental statement, we conclude that he failed to 

comply with the minimal requirements of Rule 1925(b). Consequently, he

has waived all of his issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(3)(iv),(4)(vii); see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., supra

at 224-25. Accordingly, we may not address the merits of those claims. 

See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., supra at 227.6 

____________________________________________

6 We recognize that our Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for limited 

instances in which appellate courts may remand criminal cases to trial courts 

in order to cure defects in Rule 1925(b) statements. In relevant part, 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c) permits appellate courts in criminal cases to remand in the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A25044-14

- 9 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

following three circumstances related to the filing of Rule 1925(b) 

statements: 

(1) An appellate court may remand [in a criminal case] 

for a determination as to whether a Statement has been filed 

and/or served or timely filed and/or served. 

* * *

(3) 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. 

(4) In a criminal case . . . [where counsel filed an 

Anders/McClendon brief] in lieu of filing a Statement [and] 

upon review of the Anders/McClendon brief, the appellate 

court believes that there are arguably meritorious issues for 

review[.] . . . 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1), (3)-(4). None of these circumstances is applicable in 

the present case. With respect to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1), the record reflects 

that neither Appellant’s original Rule 1925(b) statement nor his 

supplemental statement were timely filed. With regard to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(c)(3), the official note to the rule makes clear that remand is available 

“only when the appellant has completely failed to respond to an order to file

a Statement. . . . [W]hen waiver occurs due to the improper filing of a 

Statement . . . relief may occur only through the post-conviction relief 

process[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3), Note. Here, Appellant has not completely 

failed to respond to the court’s order directing him to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement. Finally, with respect to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), counsel is privately 

retained and has not filed an Anders/McClendon brief. Therefore, remand 

is not available in the instant case.
J-A25044-14

- 10 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/18/2014