Carson, C. v. Simelani, I. ( 2017 )

J-A06020-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CRYSTAL CARSON, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
IMANI SIMELANI,
Appellant No. 1804 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Civil Division at No(s): PF-0000351-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, SHOGAN, and RANSOM, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: Filed: March 10, 2017
On April 12, 2016, the trial court issued a temporary protection from
abuse (“PFA”) order in favor of Crystal Carson and against Appellant, Imani
Simelani. On April 13, 2016, Ms. Carson filed a complaint for indirect
criminal contempt against Appellant for violating the temporary PFA. On
April 19, 2016, the trial court held a final hearing on the PFA order and
determined that there was insufficient evidence to make the PFA order final.
That same day, the trial court addressed Ms. Carson’s complaint for indirect
criminal contempt and determined that Appellant was in contempt for
violating the temporary PFA order and sentenced Appellant to a term of
incarceration of thirty to sixty days, to be followed by four months of
probation.
J-A06020-17
On May 11, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se document requesting
immediate release/parole. On May 13, 2016, the trial court entered an
order denying Appellant’s request. On June 1, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se
notice of appeal from the trial court’s order of May 13, 2016, to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On June 8, 2016, our Supreme Court
transferred the case to Superior Court.
On July 11, 2016, the trial court issued an order directing Appellant to
file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on or before August 1, 2016. However,
Appellant failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement as directed. On August
10, 2016, the trial court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which noted
that all issues on appeal are waived due to Appellant’s failure to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
“[A] pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d
245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003). In Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306,
309 (Pa. 1998), our Supreme Court held that if an appellant is directed to
file a concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), any issues not raised in that statement are waived. In
Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631 (Pa. 2002), the Court further
expanded the Lord holding, concluding that waiver automatically applies
when a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement is not filed or if an issue is not included
in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, even when the question of waiver has
-2-
J-A06020-17
not been raised by the other party, and even when the trial court has chosen
to overlook the failure by addressing the issues it assumed would be raised.
We have thoroughly reviewed the certified record before us on appeal
and observe that Appellant has failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
as directed by the trial court’s July 11, 2016 order. Accordingly, due to this
failure by Appellant, we are constrained to conclude that all issues are
waived. Hence, we quash this appeal.1
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/10/2017
____________________________________________
1
We note that the procedure found at Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) providing for
remand for the filing of a concise statement of matters complained of on
appeal is not implicated in this case, because that is a remedy for an
attorney’s failure to file such a statement in a criminal matter. Here,
Appellant is acting pro se.
-3-