Com. v. Reed, W. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S70038-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. WILLIAM REED, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1318 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 9, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-SA-0000362-2014 BEFORE: LAZARUS, MUNDY, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED DECEMBER 09, 2014 William Reed (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after he was found guilty of reckless driving, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3736. We affirm. Given the manner in which we dispose of this appeal, we need only provide the following brief summary of the matter. On April 9, 2014, following a waiver trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of reckless driving. The court sentenced Appellant the same day. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On May 9, 2014, the trial court directed Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days of the court’s order. Appellant untimely filed a 1925(b) statement on June 9, 2014, wherein Appellant stated that he would challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S70038-14 presented at his trial. The following day, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) opinion addressing Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal, Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he committed reckless driving. We must pause in order to address whether we can reach the merits of this issue. Appellant’s counsel failed to file timely a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on Appellant’s behalf. [T]his Court has held that failure to timely file a Rule 1925(b) statement is the equivalent of a failure to file said statement. Both failures constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel, which in criminal cases ordinarily requires a remand for the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). However, this Court held [w]hen counsel has filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement and the trial court has addressed those issues we need not remand and may address the merits of the issues presented. … Commonwealth v. Fischere, 70 A.3d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, Appellant raised his sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue in his untimely filed 1925(b) statement, and the trial court addressed the issue in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) opinion. Accordingly, we will address the merits of the issue. Our standard of review in determining whether the evidence was sufficient requires that we consider the evidence admitted at trial in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, since it was the verdict winner, and grant it all reasonable inferences -2- J-S70038-14 which can be derived therefrom. The evidence, so viewed, will be deemed legally sufficient to sustain the jury's conviction on appeal only if it proves each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Poland, 26 A.3d 518, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). With this standard in mind, we reviewed Appellant’s brief, the certified record, and the pertinent law and have concluded that the trial court’s opinion adequately addresses and properly rejects the issue and argument Appellant presents on appeal. We, therefore, adopt the court’s opinion and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on the basis of that opinion. Trial Court Opinion, 6/10/2014. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court’s June 10, 2014 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/9/2014 -3- Circulated 10/30/2014 02:39 PM Circulated 10/30/2014 02:39 PM Circulated 10/30/2014 02:39 PM Circulated 10/30/2014 02:39 PM
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.
