Com. v. Rivera, E. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S37015-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EMANUEL RIVERA Appellant No. 1774 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 31, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006999-2012 CP-67-CR-00070002012 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Emanuel Rivera appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of York County following his convictions for murder in the first degree,1 robbery,2 conspiracy to commit robbery,3 and conspiracy to commit burglary4 arising out of a shooting in York on May 28, 2012. We remand for further proceedings. A jury found Rivera guilty on June 7, 2013, and on July 31, 2013, the court imposed a sentence of life in prison plus four to eight years. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i). 3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(c); 3701(a)(1)(i). 4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(c); 3502(a). On J-S37015-14 -trial motions, which the court denied by order dated August 28, 2013. Counsel filed a timely notice of appeal on September 27, 2013, and by order filed October 2, 2013, the trial court directed Rivera to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). A review of the docket indicates that on counsel, Seamus Donohue Dubbs, Esquire. Rivera did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and on December 4, 2013, the trial court issued a short Rule 1925(a) opinion noting the lack of a the trial, the findings made by the [t]rial [c]ourt during the trial and Court Opinion, 12/4/13, at 1-2. On appeal, Rivera challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for first-degree murder and the weight of the evidence to support his other convictions. We are unable to reach the merits of the issues presented for the following reasons. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(c)(3), which governs remand for preparation of a Rule 1925(b) statement in a criminal case, provides: If an appellant in a criminal case was ordered to file a Statement and failed to do so, such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge. -2- J-S37015-14 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c). In Commonwealth v. Scott, 952 A.2d 1190, 1192 (Pa. Super. 2008), mpletely failed to file a Rule Moreover, in light of the fact that the trial court had not prepared a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the Scott court determined that it was constrained to remand for preparation of a Rule 1925(b) statement and a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Id. Consistent with Scott, we remand for the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc within 30 days of this memorandum and for the preparation of an opinion by the trial court, to be filed within 60 days thereafter. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Panel jurisdiction retained. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
