J-S01025-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ZAKEE PETERSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 931 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 9, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009181-2017.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 15, 2020

Zakee Peterson appeals from a judgment of sentence, which the trial 

court imposed after a jury convicted him of murder of the second degree, 

carrying a firearm in the City of Philadelphia, and possessing an instrument of 

crime.

1

 Upon review, we find Peterson’s 1925(b) statement is so deficient 

that it precludes merit review of all appellate issues. Because such a 

statement constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel, we remand for

appointment of new counsel and further proceedings.

Due to the representational shortcomings of Peterson’s counsel, only a 

brief discussion of the case is required here. A jury convicted Peterson of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108, and 18 Pa.C.S.A § 907, 

respectively.
J-S01025-20

- 2 -

shooting and killing Alvin Williams, while Peterson attempted to rob Mr. 

Williams at gunpoint in his barbershop. The trial court imposed a mandatory 

sentence of life imprisonment.

This timely appeal followed, and the trial court ordered Peterson to file 

a 1925(b) statement. The court stated that, “issues not contained in a Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal that is both timely filed of record 

with the [trial] court and timely served on the trial judge in accordance with 

the terms of this ORDER will be deemed waived.” March 27, 2019 Order 

(citing Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005)).

Peterson presents two issues in his appellate brief. They are:

1. Whether the Superior Court should remand this case 

for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the 

disgraced homicide detective inappropriately touched 

the co-defendant ultimately effecting his testimony at 

[Peterson’s] trial causing him substantial harm and 

undue prejudice.

2. Whether the verdict was against the sufficiency of the 

evidence when the robbery count and other felonies 

were dismissed at the preliminary hearing, but 

[Peterson] was convicted of murder of the second 

degree, felony murder, based on perpetration of a 

felony, causing him substantial harm and undue 

prejudice.

Peterson’s Brief at 4.

Before we may address the merits of either issue, we must determine 

whether Peterson properly preserved them for appellate review. To do so, we 

turn to his 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Peterson

listed the following two issues in that statement:
J-S01025-20

- 3 -

1. The verdict is against the sufficiency of the evidence. 

The video compilation of the Commonwealth was not 

clear and distinct but fuzzy. The testimonies of 

Commonwealth witnesses, co-defendant, Raekwan 

Moore; his intended wife, Brittany Square; and 

eyewitness, Jeremy McKnight, are suspect, since each 

had a motive to fabricate.

2. Detective Philip Nordo: There was a great deal of 

dialogue between the court and the parties about 

what would be admissible regarding this disgraced 

Homicide Detective. Ultimately, there was a 

stipulation between the parties. The question is what 

traumatic effect Detective Nordo had on the testimony 

of co-defendant Raekwan Moore. Did the Detective’s 

improper touching of co-defendant have such an 

effect that psychologically it caused Mr. Moore to lie 

to the jury about [Peterson’s] involvement in the 

homicide and intended robbery of Mr. Al Williams on 

12/10/2015?

Peterson’s 1925(b) Statement.

Upon reviewing Peterson’s 1925(b) statement, the trial court concluded 

he had waived both of these issues, due to his failure to provide that court 

with specific grounds of error, as Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) mandates. Under 

that Rule:

(ii) The Statement shall concisely identify each error that 

the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to 

identify the issue to be raised for the judge . . . 

(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)(4) (emphasis added). See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 

A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (stating that “from this date forward, in order to 

preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever 
J-S01025-20

- 4 -

the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement 

will be deemed waived.”), reaffirmed Castillo, supra.

Applying Pa.R.A.P. 1925 and its accompanying precedents, the trial

court opined as follows:

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence . . . 

The Superior Court has said the following:

In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of 

the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement must state with specificity the element or 

elements upon which the appellant alleges that the 

evidence was insufficient. Such specificity is of 

particular importance in cases where, as here, the 

appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of 

which contains numerous elements that the 

Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa.Super. 

2013). Here, [Peterson’s] sufficiency claim fails to specify 

any elements of any of the offenses that [he] believes to be 

unsupported by sufficient evidence. Rather, [Peterson] 

alleges that there was poor video quality and that the 

testimony of several . . . witnesses was incredible, because 

each witness “had a motive to fabricate.” Statement of 

Errors at 1. However, a claim premised upon video quality 

and the credibility of witnesses challenges the weight, not 

the sufficiency, of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Palo, 

24 A.3d 1050, 1055 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 34 

A.3d 828 (Pa. 2011). Accordingly, the [trial court] was 

given no valid grounds for relief regarding the sufficiency of 

the evidence. Therefore, this claim is waived.

* * * * *

B. Detective Philip Nordo . . .
J-S01025-20

- 5 -

The [trial court] is unable to discern a claim from this 

paragraph [of Peterson’s 1925(b) statement]. [Peterson] 

does not allege trial court error, nor allege that [he] was 

somehow denied any constitutional or statutory rights. It 

seems to simply raise a question about the veracity of a 

witness. Because this [trial court] cannot glean a claim from 

this paragraph of the statement . . . any claims he intended 

to assert therein has been waived. See Commonwealth 

v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1228 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal 

denied, 964 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009) (where [appellant] makes 

a vague and generalized objection on appeal that leaves the 

trial court to guess at his or her claims, those claims are 

deemed to have been waived).

Trial Court Opinion, 6/12/19, at 5, 12.

We agree with the learned trial court’s waiver analysis and adopt it as 

our own. Whenever “a court has to guess what issues an appellant is 

appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.” Commonwealth v. 

Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 687 (Pa.Super. 2001). Peterson’s attorney so poorly

apprised the trial court of the claims of error that Peterson planned to appeal

that he left the trial court to guess as to what grounds of error he planned to 

assert in this Court. We therefore must dismiss his appellate issues as waived

at this time, because no meaningful review is possible. 

Pursuant to recent precedent from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 

we also conclude that Peterson’s counsel was per se ineffective in representing 

him. Our High Court held that, in criminal matters, “counsel’s filing of a 

woefully deficient [Rule 1925(b)] statement . . . which precludes merits review 

of all appellate issues, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel per se, 

warranting reinstatement of [the] right to file a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc 
J-S01025-20

- 6 -

pro tunc.” Commonwealth v. Parrish, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 355016, 

at *1 (Pa. 2020).

We therefore remand this matter to the trial court for appointment of 

new counsel within 14 days of the issuance of this Memorandum. While we 

would normally issue a schedule for the filing of a new 1925(b) statement, 

1925(a) opinion, and briefs from the parties, we are reluctant to issue a 

specific timeline given the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, we relinquish panel 

jurisdiction at this time so that the parties and the trial court may begin the 

appellate process anew, and direct the court and the parties to comply with 

the standard timing requirements as much as possible.

Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction relinquished.

Judge Strassburger joins the memorandum.

Judge Bowes concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/20