J-S71043-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TERRELL LEWIS

 Appellant No. 3015 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 18, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007658-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2016

Appellant, Terrell Lewis, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his nonnegotiated guilty plea to two counts of robbery, two counts of possession of 

firearm prohibited, and one count of possession of an instrument of crime. 

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We quash 

this appeal and remand for further proceedings.

This case stems from two separate cases: CP-51-CR-0008672 (“Case 

1”) and CP-51-CR-0007658-2012 (“Case 2”). After Appellant entered a 

consolidated guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him on March 18, 2014. 

On March 25, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration for 

both cases. Thereafter, two separate counsel, each representing Appellant 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S71043-16

- 2 -

on the respective cases, each filed individual, timely motions for 

reconsideration. On March 27, 2014, the trial court summarily denied the 

counseled motion for reconsideration filed in Case 1. The trial court never 

ruled on the other counseled reconsideration motion filed in Case 2. The 

court indicated that it had never received the motion. Trial Ct. Op., 

1/19/15, at 2. Appellant’s counsel on Case 2 filed the instant notice of 

appeal on June 27, 2014. Appellant’s counsel on Case 1 did not file a direct 

appeal.

As a prefatory matter, we examine this Court’s jurisdiction. Although 

not raised by the parties, it is well settled that this Court may raise 

questions affecting our jurisdiction sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Green, 

862 A.2d 613, 615 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). This Court’s jurisdiction is 

triggered once an order becomes final. Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 

A.2d 638, 642 (Pa. Super. 2005). In criminal cases, a direct appeal may be 

filed within thirty days of a judgment of sentence becoming final. Id.

(citation omitted). A judgment of sentence does not become final until the 

resolution of any post-sentence motions. Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 

A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. 1997). Once a post-sentence motion is filed, the 

trial court has 120 days to rule on the motion, otherwise the motion is 

deemed denied by operation of law pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a), 

and the clerk of courts is directed to enter an order reflecting the same. 

Commonwealth v. Perry, 820 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003). 
J-S71043-16

- 3 -

If an appellant files a notice of appeal prior to the resolution of postsentence motions, the judgment of sentence has not become “final” and the 

purported appeal will be considered interlocutory and unreviewable. 

Borrero, 692 A.2d at 160. When such an interlocutory appeal has been 

filed, the proper remedy is to quash the appeal and remand for consideration 

of the post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc.

1

 Id. at 161. 

Appellant’s instant notice of appeal, regarding Case 2, was filed prior 

to the 120-day period allotted for the resolution of his post-sentence motion 

concerning that case. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). Indeed, the trial 

court indicated that the motion at issue was never even received by the 

court. Trial Ct. Op. at 2. Therefore, we conclude that Appellant’s judgment 

of sentence does not yet constitute a final order because his post-sentence 

motion was pending at the time he filed his notice of appeal. Borrero, 692 

at 160. Thus, Appellant’s instant notice of appeal is premature. Id. 

Accordingly, we quash this appeal and remand to allow the trial court to rule 

on Appellant’s post-sentence motion regarding Case 2. 

Appeal quashed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

 

1 Under these circumstances, the nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion is 

deemed filed on the date in which the certified record is remanded to the 

trial court.
J-S71043-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2016
J-S71043-16

- 5 -