Com. v. Hanton, J. ( 2015 )

J-A21031-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMES HANTON,
Appellant No. 2253 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 17, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008400-2012
BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2015
James Hanton (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver crack
cocaine, 35 P.S. § 78-113(a)(30).1
The trial court explained that after Appellant pled guilty, he was
“sentenced to 11½ to 23 months incarceration followed by 60 months
reporting probation, within the standard range of the guidelines for a repeat
felony offender. [Appellant] was credited with 25 months of time served and
immediately paroled.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/29/15, at 1 (footnote omitted).
____________________________________________
1
On December 22, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), and determined that
Appellant voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A21031-15
Appellant presents us with a “summary of questions involved”:
1. Was the Appellant entitled to have Motion to Suppress
Honored/Granted; should case have been dismissed pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.Pr. Rule 600; did the court lack subject matter
jurisdiction over the case/cause of action?
Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unnumbered).
Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s questions, we note that on
December 31, 2014, the trial court ordered Appellant’s compliance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), “not later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this
Order. Any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and
served pursuant to subdivision (b) of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 shall be deemed
waived.” (Emphasis added). The trial court’s order included proof of service
to Appellant at the same Tyson Avenue, Philadelphia address which
Appellant lists on his appellate brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 18
(unnumbered).
Appellant did not timely file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. On
January 29, 2015, the trial court issued its opinion in which it found waiver
due to Appellant’s failure to file a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
Appellant has appended to his appellate brief a copy of his Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement, time-stamped February 10, 2015. Our review of the
certified record confirms that Appellant did not timely file his Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement, but submitted it approximately two weeks after the trial
court issued its opinion finding waiver. In his appellate brief, Appellant does
not address his failure to timely file his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
-2-
J-A21031-15
In its brief, the Commonwealth is in agreement with the trial court that
Appellant “waived his appellate rights when he ignored the trial court and
failed to file a [timely] 1925(b) statement.” Commonwealth Brief at 4. In
addition, the Commonwealth asserts, “even if [Appellant] had filed the
1925(b) statement, he would still not be entitled to relief [because] he
explicitly waived his right to challenge the denial of his post-trial motions
when he pled guilty, and his challenge to the trial court’s subject matter
jurisdiction is absurd.” Id.Upon review, we agree with both the trial court and Commonwealth.
Our Supreme Court has explained:
Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly
establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule,
which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b)
statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule
1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the
authority to countenance deviations from the Rule's terms; the
Rule's provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or
selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are
responsible for complying with the Rule's requirements[.]
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). We note this is
not a case like Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super.
2003), where an untimely filed concise statement of matters complained of
on appeal was addressed by the trial court in its opinion, such that the
issues were preserved for appellate review because the purpose of the
appellate rule requiring such statement was served. Rather, we adhere to
J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010), where this Court reiterated
-3-
J-A21031-15
that an appellant’s failure to comply with an order to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement within 21 days constitutes waiver of all objections to the order,
ruling, or other matter complained of on appeal. Id. at 908, citing
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) and Commonwealth v.
Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005).
Given the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case stricken from the argument list.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/10/2015
-4-