Com. v. Rosario-Torres, J. ( 2019 )

J-S39026-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JESUS ROSARIO-TORRES
Appellant No. 925 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered February 28, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-52-CR-0000286-2008
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
Appellant Jesus Rosario-Torres pro se appeals from the February 28,
2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County (“trial court”), which
denied his “Motion to Vacate and/or Reconsider Fines, Costs & Restitution
Nunc Pro Tunc on the Grounds of Indigence” (the “Motion”). Upon review, we
affirm.
Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not recite the lengthy
factual and procedural history of this case, which has been set forth in detail
in our May 4, 2016 memorandum affirming the lower court’s decision to deny
Appellant post-conviction relief. See Commonwealth v. Rosario-Torres,
No. 1223 EDA 2015, unpublished memorandum at 1-4 (Pa. Super. filed May
4, 2016). Following the denial of post-conviction relief, Appellant pro se filed
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39026-19
the Motion on February 27, 2019, requesting that the trial court either vacate
or reconsider the imposition of fines, costs and restitution. 1 On February 28,
2019, the trial court denied the Motion. Appellant timely appeal. On March
15, 2019, the trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days. The trial
court cautioned Appellant that “failure to comply with this direction may”
result in waiver of claims on appeal. Appellant failed to comply. On April 18,
2019, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion, concluding that
Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement resulted in waiver of all
issues he wished to raise on appeal. We agree.
It is well established that the failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b)
statement results in the waiver of all claims on appeal. See Commonwealth
v. Auchmuty, 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that a pro se
appellant’s failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in
waiver of all issues on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues
not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). Accordingly, we decline to
entertain the merits of this appeal because Appellant has waived all issues.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1Appellant currently is serving a life sentence for, inter alia, his first-degree
murder conviction.
-2-
J-S39026-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/19
-3-