Com. v. Raffensberger, W. ( 2017 )

J-S14022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WARREN H. RAFFENSBERGER,
Appellant No. 1752 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002844-2002
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MARCH 15, 2017
Appellant, Warren H. Raffensberger, appeals from the order entered
on September 19, 2016, that denied his motion to waive court costs and
fines associated with the judgment of sentence imposed on January 14,
2008.1 We affirm.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
While not specifically designated, we conclude that Appellant’s motion to
waive court costs and fines was a motion of imminent default under
Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 706(D), in which Appellant claimed that his current
physical and financial situation prevented him from making further
payments.
J-S14022-17
The record reveals that in 2002, while on parole from earlier burglary
convictions, Appellant was charged with persons not to possess firearms.2
Appellant failed to appear for a scheduled guilty plea hearing, and a bench
warrant was issued. Eventually, Appellant was discovered in Ohio and
returned to Pennsylvania in November of 2007. N.T., 1/14/08, at 3. On
January 14, 2008, Appellant was convicted of the firearms offense and
sentenced that same day to a term of two to four years of incarceration
followed by four years of probation. Appellant filed an appeal, and this Court
affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.
Raffensberger, 970 A.2d 476, 311 MDA 2008 (Pa. Super. filed February 4,
2009) (unpublished memorandum). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v.
Raffensberger, 981 A.2d 219, 157 MAL 2009 (Pa. filed July 22, 2009).
On February 24, 2010, Appellant filed a timely pro se petition for relief
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
Despite the appointment of counsel, Appellant filed a plethora of pro se
motions for relief. In one of Appellant’s pro se motions, he requested the
PCRA court judge to recuse. The PCRA court denied this request in an order
filed on March 21, 2011, while Appellant’s PCRA petition was still pending.
Despite the pendency of Appellant’s PCRA petition, Appellant filed a notice of
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.
-2-
J-S14022-17
appeal to this Court from the March 21, 2011 order denying recusal. In an
order filed on September 13, 2011, this Court quashed Appellant’s
interlocutory appeal. On September 18, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se
motion to withdraw his PCRA petition, and he subsequently filed a counseled
motion to withdraw his PCRA petition. Attached to the counseled motion
was an agreement memorializing that counsel explained to Appellant the
ramifications of withdrawing his PCRA petition and informing him of the
rights he was waiving.3 On October 18, 2011, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant’s PCRA petition with prejudice.
Nearly five years later, on August 22, 2016, Appellant filed the
underlying motion to waive court costs and fines that he remained obligated
to pay pursuant to the January 14, 2008 judgment of sentence. In his
motion, Appellant alleged a change in circumstance and inability to pay due
to illness and complete disability. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion
on September 19, 2016. This timely appeal followed.
On October 4, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve
upon the court a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial
____________________________________________
3
The counseled motion to withdraw Appellant’s PCRA petition and the
accompanying agreement are not separately docketed. We note however,
that the PCRA court attached the counseled motion and agreement to its
October 18, 2011 order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition with prejudice.
Certified Record, at Docket Entry 88.
-3-
J-S14022-17
court noted that Appellant failed to comply. Trial Court Opinion, 11/9/16, at
unnumbered 1.
It is well settled that in order to preserve an issue for appellate review,
an appellant must timely file a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of
errors complained of on appeal, and any issues not raised will be deemed
waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005)
(reaffirming the bright-line rule first set forth in Commonwealth v. Lord,
719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)). Therefore, because Appellant failed to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, he has failed to preserve any issues for this
Court’s review. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion
to waive court costs and fines.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/15/2017
-4-