Com. v. Stehley, T.
This text of Com. v. Stehley, T. (Com. v. Stehley, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-A24029-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TROY STEVEN STEHLEY : : Appellant : No. 1081 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 16, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000418-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JANUARY 04, 2021
Troy Steven Stehley appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his convictions for two counts each of Recklessly Endangering
Another Person (“REAP”) and Possession with Intent to Deliver (“PWID”), and
one count each of Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, Criminal
Mischief, Possession of a Controlled Substance (“Possession”), and Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia.1 Stehley challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence.
We do not address Stehley’s challenge at this time, because his counsel
failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, despite a court order directing
counsel to do so. Counsel’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement when
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(2), and 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and 780-113(a)(32), respectively. J-A24029-20
ordered to do so constitutes per se ineffectiveness of counsel. See
Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 432 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc)
(“The complete failure to file the 1925 concise statement is per se
ineffectiveness because it is without reasonable basis designed to effectuate
the client's interest and waives all issues on appeal”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3).
We therefore remand for counsel to file the statement within 20 days of the
date of this Memorandum. The trial court shall then prepare and file a
responsive opinion within 30 days of the filing of the Rule 1925(b) statement.
Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Stehley, T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-stehley-t-pasuperct-2021.