Feedback

Com V Burell A

J-S02004-25


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  AYANA BURELL                                 :   No. 966 EDA 2024

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2024
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0002464-2022


BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                          FILED JULY 22, 2025

       The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting extraordinary

relief and vacating Ayana Burell’s judgment of sentence for simple assault.

After review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

       On August 26, 2022, after a non-jury trial, Burell was found guilty and

convicted of simple assault1 and harassment,2 and sentenced Burell to two

years’ probation for the simple assault conviction. On September 2, 2022,

the trial court sua sponte reconsidered its verdict and entered an order

vacating the simple assault conviction because of insufficient evidence. The




____________________________________________


1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1).


2 Id. at § 2709(a)(1).
J-S02004-25



trial court then sentenced Burell to, inter alia, 90 days of probation on the

summary harassment conviction.

      The Commonwealth appealed from the court’s sua sponte order, arguing

that (1) the trial court could not grant an arrest of judgment without a motion

to do so before it, and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the simple

assault conviction. We agreed, reversed the trial court’s order vacating the

simple assault conviction and judgment of sentence, and remanded for

reinstatement of that conviction and reimposition of the original probationary

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Burell 307 A.3d 654, at *6 (Pa. Super.

2023) (Table).

      On remand, the trial court held a hearing on December 20, 2023 where

it reinstated the simple assault conviction but deferred sentencing at the

request of Burell’s counsel. See N.T. Hearing, 12/20/23, at 4-5. On February

21, 2024, Burell’s counsel made an oral motion for extraordinary relief and

arrest of judgment on the charge of simple assault, arguing that there was

insufficient evidence that Burell had the requisite intent to cause bodily injury.

See N.T. Resentencing Hearing, 2/21/24, at 3-4; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 704.

The trial court granted the motion and again vacated Burell’s simple assault

conviction. Id. at 7.

      The Commonwealth timely appealed, and the trial court and the

Commonwealth both complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.             The Commonwealth

raises the following claim for appeal:




                                      -2-
J-S02004-25


      Did the [trial] court err by failing to comply with this Court’s order
      on remand—in particular, by purporting to again rule the evidence
      insufficient to prove simple assault and by failing to follow this
      Court’s ordered instructions—where the [trial] court’s disposition:

         (1) contradicted this Court’s conclusive ruling that under
         “the appropriate standard [. . . t]he evidence in the light
         most favorable to the Commonwealth [. . .] was sufficient”
         to support the conviction of simple assault; and

         (2) failed to follow this Court’s order to “reinstate[ . . .] that
         conviction and reimpos[e . . .] the probationary sentence”?

Commonwealth’s Brief, at 4 (citations to record omitted).

      The Commonwealth argues that the trial court “had no authority to

decline to enforce” our instructions on remand.        Id. at 12.    Burell agrees,

stating that “the trial court erred by not complying with this Court’s order to

reinstate the verdict of guilt as to simple assault and reimpose sentence on

that charge.” Burell’s Brief, at 1.

      We agree. Here, the trial court was without authority to disregard our

order on remand. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2591(a) provides

that “[o]n remand of the record the court or other government unit below

shall proceed in accordance with the judgment or other order of the

appellate court[.]”     (emphasis added).       “[T]he trial court must comply

strictly with this Court’s mandate and has no power to modify, alter, amend,

set aside, or in any measure disturb or depart from this Court’s decision as to

any matter decided on appeal.” US Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Trustee of NRZ

Inventory Trust v. Gardner, 326 A.3d 113, 119 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation

omitted). Thus, the trial court erred when it failed to abide by our prior order


                                       -3-
J-S02004-25


and impose the original sentence for simple assault.      Accordingly, upon

remand, we once again direct the trial court to reinstate Burell’s conviction

and judgment of sentence for simple assault.

     Order vacated. Case remanded for compliance with this Court’s October

11, 2023 order. Jurisdiction relinquished.




Date: 7/22/2025




                                    -4-