J-S49011-19

J-S49012-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LEONALDO RIVERA,

Appellant No. 2287 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003965-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LEONALDO RIVERA,

Appellant No. 2288 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003964-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 03, 2019

Appellant, Leonaldo Rivera, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, followed by 71⁄2 to 20 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49011-19

J-S49012-19

- 2 -

years’ incarceration, imposed in two separate cases, which were consolidated 

for trial, and which we consolidate for purposes of this appeal. After review, 

we are compelled to quash these appeals.

A detailed factual recitation is not necessary to our disposition. We only 

briefly note that the evidence presented at Appellant’s jury trial established 

that he fired multiple shots into a vehicle containing two men, killing one and 

seriously injuring the other. He was arrested and charged in separate cases 

relating to each victim. Those cases were consolidated for trial and, on May 

4, 2018, the jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, aggravated 

assault, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on a public 

street or property in Philadelphia. That same day, the court sentenced him to 

the term set forth supra. 

On May 12, 2018, Appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to 

file a post-sentence motion in each case. On May 24, 2018, the court issued 

an order granting those motions and directing Appellant to file his postsentence motion(s) on or before July 24, 2018. Appellant did not file a postsentence motion at either docket number. Instead, on July 24, 2018, he filed 

separate notices of appeal in each case. The court directed him to file a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and 

he timely complied. The court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 19, 

2018. 
J-S49011-19

J-S49012-19

- 3 -

Appellant filed identical briefs in both appeals before this Court, stating 

the following three issues for our review:

[I.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by repeatedly 

overruling an objection to the admission of the testimony of a 

witness because such testimony was speculative and hearsay? Did 

the prejudicial effect of such evidence far outweigh[] any 

probative value?

[II.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by overruling 

an objection to the admission of the identification testimony of a 

witness because such testimony was speculative and 

argumentative? Did the prejudicial effect of such evidence far 

outweigh[] any probative value?

[III.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by failing 

to give an instruction to [the] jury to disregard improper argument 

by the prosecutor[?] The sustaining of the objection without 

elaboration was inadequate when there was no corresponding 

instruction[.]

Appellant’s Brief at 8 (citations to the record omitted).

Before we may address Appellant’s claims, we must sua sponte 

determine if we have jurisdiction over his appeals. Commonwealth v. 

Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that this Court may sua 

sponte address issues implicating our jurisdiction to entertain the appeal) 

(citation omitted). “Time limitations for taking appeals are strictly construed 

and cannot be extended as a matter of grace.” Id. (citation omitted). “Absent 

extraordinary circumstances, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an 

untimely appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).

“Rule 720 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure in general 

governs the timing of post-sentence motion procedures and appeals.” Id. at 

499 (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720). That rule states, in pertinent part: “If the 
J-S49011-19

J-S49012-19

- 4 -

defendant does not file a timely post-sentence motion, the defendant’s notice 

of appeal shall be filed within 30 days of imposition of sentence....” 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(a)(3) (emphasis added). Here, Appellant did not file a postsentence motion in either of his two cases, although being granted an 

extension of time to do so by the trial court. Therefore, the 30-day appeal 

period was not tolled, and his notices of appeal were due on or before June 4, 

2018.1 Appellant did not file his appeals until July 24, 2018. Consequently, 

we lack jurisdiction over these untimely appeals, and we are constrained to 

quash.

Appeals quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/3/19

____________________________________________

1 Thirty days after May 4, 2018, was Sunday, June 3, 2018; thus, Appellant

had until Monday, June 4, 2018, to file a timely appeal in each case. 1 Pa.C.S. 

§ 1908 (“When any period of time is referred to in any statute, such period in 

all cases...shall be so computed as to exclude the first and include the last day 

of such period. Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on a 

Saturday or Sunday, or on any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this 

Commonwealth or of the United States, such day shall be omitted from the 

computation.”).