Full Opinion

J-S27020-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LARRY LEGGITT : : Appellant : No. 2629 EDA 2025 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 15, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0428601-1994 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 27, 2026 Appellant, Larry Leggitt, appeals from the order entered on September 15, 2025, denying his request for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review of the record, Appellant’s counsel failed to file a court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Thereafter, the PCRA court erred in accepting Appellant’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement and preparing a responsive opinion. Accordingly, we remand this case to the PCRA court for the nunc pro tunc filing of a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement and the preparation of a new opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows. On April 27, 1995, a jury convicted Appellant of “first-degree murder and related offenses for the shooting death of Appellant’s former paramour.” See Commonwealth v. Leggitt, 2019 WL 1976129, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2019) J-S27020-26 (non-precedential decision) (unnecessary capitalization and footnote omitted). He was sentenced “to life imprisonment followed by a consecutive aggregate term of 15 to 37 years' incarceration for the other convictions.” Id. Appellant’s judgment of sentence “became final on September 1, 1997.” Id. Since then, this Court has affirmed six orders dismissing unsuccessful petitions Appellant filed with the PCRA court. Id. Most recently, on December 1, 2022, privately-retained counsel entered her appearance to represent Appellant. Counsel filed a PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf on September 15, 2023, as well as an amended PCRA petition on April 29, 2024. Several continuances were requested by PCRA counsel and the Commonwealth, which the PCRA court granted. 1 Ultimately, on August 22, 2025, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the amended PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On September 12, 2025, counsel for Appellant filed a response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice. On September 15, 2025, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing the instant PCRA petition. On October 1, 2025, counsel for Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On October 15, 2025, Appellant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration, which the PCRA court did not address because it was divested of jurisdiction when Appellant filed his notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/11/2025, at 3 n.1. On the same day, October 15, 2025, the PCRA court entered an order directing ____________________________________________ 1 The case was also reassigned to two subsequent PCRA judges. -2- J-S27020-26 Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Upon review of the docket, counsel of record for Appellant, the Commonwealth, and Appellant were all served with a copy of the Rule 1925(b) order. The PCRA court states that Appellant filed a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement on October 22, 2025. See id. Nonetheless, from our review of the certified record, there is no notation on the PCRA court docket that a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement was formally filed and/or accepted by the PCRA court.2 On December 11, 2025, the PCRA court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), addressing three issues (one with five sub-parts) as purportedly set forth in Appellant’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement.3 See id. at 3-4. Currently, counsel for Appellant has filed an appellate brief with this Court raising 12 issues that are different from the ____________________________________________ 2 See also Commonwealth’s Brief at 7 (“[T]he docket does not reflect that a Rule 1925(b) statement was filed pro se. The Commonwealth was never served with the pro se Rule 1925(b) statement. While the PCRA court confirmed that it received a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement and wrote its opinion [pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)] in response, appellate counsel confirmed in [her appellate brief filed with this Court] that she was representing [Appellant] at the time.”). 3 The PCRA court noted that Appellant filed a notice of appeal pro se despite still being represented by counsel and that “[t]he PCRA [c]ourt attempted to contact Appellant’s counsel numerous times to confirm if she [were] still representing Appellant” but that [c]ounsel never replied to the PCRA [c]ourt’s inquiries.” PCRA Court Opinion, 12/11/2025, at 3 n.2. In her submission to this Court, counsel for Appellant responds that “Appellant was and still is represented by [c]ounsel” and rejects “[t]he PCRA [c]ourt claims that it attempted to contact Appellant’s counsel numerous times to confirm” Appellant’s continued representation, averring that she “has not received any communications or inquiries from the [c]ourt” despite the fact that her “contact information has not changed.” Appellant’s Counseled Brief at 6 n.1. -3- J-S27020-26 claims Appellant presented in his pro se Rule 1925(b) statement. See Appellant’s Counseled Brief at 2-4; see also Commonwealth’s Brief at 4 (Appellant “sent a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement to the PCRA court and the court wrote a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response. Now, counsel seeks to raise different claims before this Court on appeal.”); see also id. at 8 (“Although the PCRA court did write a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response to the improper pro se Rule 1925(b) statement, the issues raised pro se were not the same as the issues presented in [Appellant’s counseled appellate] brief[.]”). “Our standard of review for issues arising from the denial of PCRA relief is well-settled. We must determine whether the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citation omitted). When represented by counsel, pro se or hybrid representation is generally not permitted. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016). A court may not accept a pro se filing while an appellant is represented by counsel; such filings have “no legal effect and, therefore, are legal nullities.” Id. at 623 (citation omitted). “When a counseled defendant files a pro se document, it is noted on the docket and forwarded to counsel pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(A)(4), but no further action is to be taken.” Id. “An attorney's failure to file and serve a timely [Rule] 1925(b) statement in a criminal case is a failure to perfect the appeal, it is presumptively prejudicial and clear [or per se] ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted). -4- J-S27020-26 “Accordingly, in criminal cases, remand, not waiver, results[.]” Id.; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (“If an appellant represented by counsel in a criminal case was ordered to file and serve a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement and either failed to do so, or untimely filed or served a Statement, such that the appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective … the appellate court may remand for appointment of new counsel, the filing or service of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement nunc pro tunc, and the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”).4 Here, there is no dispute that Appellant was represented by counsel. She entered her appearance in December 2022 and filed both an original and amended PCRA petition on behalf of Appellant. Counsel also filed a timely notice of appeal. However, counsel did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered. In turn, the PCRA court erred as a matter of law by accepting Appellant’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement and issuing a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion substantively analyzing the pro se claims presented therein. Instead, the PCRA court should have forwarded the pro se filing to defense counsel and merely noted it on the docket pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(A)(4). Because no further action was warranted, the PCRA court erred by subsequently addressing the pro se claims in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. This Court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective such that a remand ____________________________________________ 4 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) was amended July 27, 2026, effective October 1, 2026. The amendment makes it clear that the safe harbor provision set forth in Rule 1925(c)(3) applies to “a criminal defendant-appellant represented by counsel.” -5- J-S27020-26 is necessary for the filing and service of a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc and the preparation and filing of a Rule 1925(a) opinion by the PCRA court addressing the issues raised in that filling. 5 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3). At this juncture, we express no opinion on the merits of Appellant’s potential collateral claims. Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained. ____________________________________________ 5 We note that counsel for Appellant filed a response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice and a timely notice of appeal on Appellant’s behalf. Thereafter, on November 3, 2025, counsel filed a criminal docketing statement with this Court as directed. Counsel also requested, and was granted, two additional extensions of time to file an appellate brief on Appellant’s behalf. Ultimately, counsel for Appellant filed an appellate brief with this Court. Currently, counsel does not suggest that she was not served with or otherwise unaware of all of the filings or docket activity in this case, including the entry of the Rule 1925(b) order. Counsel has responded timely to all of the PCRA court’s other rulings, showing she was aware of and/or served appropriately. Moreover, the certified record confirms that counsel was served at her address of record. Curiously, defense counsel does not currently offer an explanation for her failure to file the Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered. Instead, counsel sets forth issues that were not included in Appellant’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement or addressed in the PCRA court’s subsequent Rule 1925(a) opinion. Finally, the Commonwealth agrees and concedes that remand is warranted. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 5 (“[T]he appropriate remedy is a remand for [the] preparation of a new [Rule 1925(b)] statement by appellate counsel in support of appeal, after which the PCRA court would then file a new opinion in response.”). “The Commonwealth, however, does not concede that claims omitted from the PCRA court’s [original Rule 1925(a)] discussion have potential merit.” Id. (emphasis in original). Counsel has 30 days from the date of this decision to file a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement. Thereafter, the trial court shall have 45 days from the filing of the Rule 1925(b) statement to issue a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion. -6-