Com. v. Simon, T.

J-S70028-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
TYUAN SIMON, :
:
Appellant : No. 1161 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 20, 2013
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0007840-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, MUNDY, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
FILED DECEMBER 12, 2014
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately because the
Majority has identified a conflict in Superior Court case law. Majority
Memorandum at 9 n.6.
I, like the Majority, agree with the cases which hold that, if an
appellant sua sponte files a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, then the appellant
only preserves the issues raised therein for appeal. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa. Super. 2008). However,
in conflict with these cases is Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736,
735, 745 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2014), which concludes that the requirements of
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) are not invoked when a trial court has not ordered an
appellant to file a 1925(b) statement, but the appellant nonetheless files
such a statement. In my view, this Court should review this issue en banc in
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S70028-14
order to resolve this conflict in the law. See Commonwealth v. Robinson,
931 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (“One function of en banc
review is to harmonize or overrule prior precedent if necessary.”).
Judge Lazarus joins this concurring memorandum.
-2-