J-S36008-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LANIER E. RILEY

Appellant No. 134 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 4, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0510931-2004

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 10, 2017

The trial court, sitting as fact-finder, convicted Appellant, Lanier Riley, 

of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and several related charges. In 

this appeal, Riley asserts that his second petition pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) was improperly dismissed by the PCRA court. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Riley was denied effective 

assistance of counsel, and remand for the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement of matters complained of on appeal nunc pro tunc.

On September 10, 2014, Michael Pileggi, Esquire, filed a petition 

seeking PCRA relief based upon Riley’s discovery of allegations that, among 

other things, Philadelphia police officers Thomas Liciardello and Brian 

Reynolds had planted evidence on criminal defendants in other cases. Both 

officers testified against Riley at his trial.
J-S36008-17

- 2 -

In the certified docket entries, Attorney Pileggi is identified as Riley’s 

attorney for the entry recording the order dismissing the PCRA petition. 

Furthermore, attorney Pileggi represented Riley at the argument session 

where the PCRA court announced its intent to dismiss the petition. See N.T., 

PCRA Argument, 12/4/15. There is no indication in the record that Attorney 

Pileggi ever withdrew his appearance in this matter.

The next entry in the docket is a pro se notice of appeal filed by Riley 

on December 29, 2015. Immediately following that is an entry title 

“Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal,” filed pro se with the same 

date. A review of this document reveals that Riley dated it December 28, 

2015. However, the time stamp on the document, in contravention of the 

docket, indicates a filing date of December 29, 2016. 

On January 21, 2016, the PCRA court entered an order directing 

Attorney Pileggi to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal 

pursuant to P.R.A.P. 1925(b). There is no indication in the record that 

Attorney Pileggi complied with this order.

On March 29, 2016, the PCRA court authored an opinion finding Riley’s 

issues on appeal waived due to Attorney Pileggi’s failure to file the required 

statement.

Riley’s pro se Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement is a nullity. The certified 

record supports the conclusion that Attorney Pileggi never withdrew his 

appearance. Counsel therefore still represents Riley at this time. See 
J-S36008-17

- 3 -

Pa.R.Crim.P. 120; Commonwealth v. Keys, 580 A.2d 386, 387 (Pa. Super. 

1990). Riley’s filing constituted an impermissible attempt at hybrid 

representation. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (Pa. 

2010) (where appellant was represented by counsel on appeal, his pro se 

Rule 1925(b) statement was a “legal nullity”).

Thus, Attorney Pileggi’s failure to respond to the PCRA court’s order 

directing him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement would cause all of Riley’s 

issues to be waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). However, under these 

circumstances, we are convinced that Attorney Pileggi’s failure constitutes 

ineffectiveness per se, and therefore remand for the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). The PCRA court 

must then promptly file an appropriate response.

Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

memorandum. Panel jurisdiction retained. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2017