Court Opinion

ID: 9378782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 16:17:20.331325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:58.052568
License: Public Domain

J-S01023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RICHARD LEONARD WILLIAMS                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 637 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2022,
               in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001064-2021.

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                 FILED: MARCH 13, 2023

        Richard Leonard Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the above case. We remand for a supplemental opinion by the trial

court. Williams was tried in this case and in Case 1991-2021 (595 WDA 2022).

He filed separate notices of appeal and concise statements of error. The trial

court entered one opinion at both dockets, addressing only Williams’ issues in

Case 1991-2021.1 As the trial court did not address Williams’ issues in Case

1064-2021, the proper remedy is to remand for an opinion to address them.

Dresner v. Povlow, 406 A.2d 350, 350 (Pa. Super. 1979) (per curiam).
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The trial court granted an extension of time to file the concise statements.
After Williams filed his concise statement in Case 1991-2021, the trial court
entered its opinion at both docket numbers. Three days later—before the
extended due date—Williams’ concise statement in Case 1064-2021 arrived
at the Clerk of Courts.
J-S01023-23

       Accordingly, we remand for the preparation of an opinion pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) that addresses the issues Williams raises in Case 1064-

2021.2 The trial court is directed to forward the opinion to this Court within

60 days of our remand.

       Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.

____________________________________________

2While Williams’ concise statement raised more issues, the trial court need
only address the issues that Williams argued in his brief that the trial court
has not already addressed:

       1. Whether the Commonwealth’s evidence in this case is
          insufficient by failing to prove the appellant was not acting in
          self defense in regards to aggravated assault (Count 2) beyond
          a reasonable doubt?

       2. Whether self defense was justified and the verdict was against
          the weight of the evidence?

       3. Whether the Commonwealth furnished evidence to justify the
          assault upon the appellant?

       4. Whether the trial court erred by not permitting inquiry into
          victims crimen falsi conviction?  [Issue 9 from Williams’
          1925(b) statement in Case 1064-2021.]

       5. [Already addressed. Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/22, at 7–8.]

       6. [Already addressed. Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/22, at 7–8.]

       7. Whether the trial court erred in its instructions by withholding
          explanation between malice and self defense?

Williams’ Brief, No. 637 WDA 2022, at 7.

                                           -2-