from the PCRA Order December 18, 2015 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s):
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.
Chester ("Chester") appeals from the Order
dismissing his first Petition filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). See 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We vacate the Order and
remand for further proceedings.
September 2009, Chester pled guilty to one count of
possession with intent to deliver marijuana. In December
2009, the trial court sentenced Chester to three years'
probation. On July 19, 2011, after
was found guilty of various crimes, the trial court revoked
Chester's probation and sentenced him to three to six
years in prison. The sentence was to run consecutive to
Chester's other sentences. Chester was advised, on the
record, that he had a right to file a motion to reconsider
the sentence within ten days and to appeal his sentence
within thirty days.
August 2, 2011, Chester filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
arguing that the probation revocation sentence was excessive
and that a new sentencing hearing was required. The Motion
was in the form of an order, which included separate
signature lines for the sentencing judge to approve or
disapprove the Motion. On August 8, 2011, the sentencing
judge signed the disapprove signature line. However, the
docket did not include an entry of the denial of the Motion.
Chester did not file a direct appeal.
September 16, 2013, Chester filed a pro se PCRA
Petition. Thereafter, Chester, through counsel, filed an
amended PCRA Petition. The PCRA court issued a Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 Notice. After Chester filed a
Response, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition on December
18, 2015. Chester filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
22, 2016, the PCRA court ordered Chester to file a
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise
statement.Chester did not file a concise statement.
appeal, Chester raises the following questions for our
I. Whether the [PCRA] court erred in d[ismissing]
[Chester's] PCRA [P]etition without an evidentiary
hearing on the issues raised in the amended PCRA [P]etition
regarding trial counsel's ineffectiveness[?]
II. Whether the [PCRA] court erred in not granting relief on
the PCRA [P]etition alleging counsel was ineffective[?]
for Appellant at 8.
to addressing Chester's claims, we note that the PCRA
court issued an Opinion finding that Chester waived his
claims by failing to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b)
concise statement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/30/17,
at 1 (unnumbered). It is well-settled that an appellant's
failure to comply with a trial court's Rule 1925(b) Order
results in a waiver of all issues on appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005);
see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Rule 1925(b)(2)
provides that "[t]he judge shall allow the appellant at
least 21 days from the date of the order's entry on the
docket for the filing and service of the Statement."
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2); see also Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)
(noting that the date of entry of an order "shall be the
day the clerk of the court … mails or delivers copies
of the order to the parties[.]"). Further, when a Rule
1925(b) order is entered, the clerk of courts must furnish
copies of the order to ...