J-S30013-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANDREW WILSON
Appellant No. 2012 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 29, 2011
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010616-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 19, 2015
Appellant, Andrew Wilson, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his
bench trial convictions of aggravated assault, discharge of a firearm into an
occupied structure, firearms not to be carried without a license, persons not
to possess firearms, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, possessing
instruments of crime, and recklessly endangering another person.1 On July
29, 2011, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of seven to
fourteen years’ imprisonment, followed by twenty-five years’ probation.
On June 15, 2012, Appellant filed a PCRA petition to reinstate his
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a), 2707.1(a), 6106(a)(1), 6105(a)(1), 6108,
907(a), and 2705, respectively.
J-S30013-15
direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, which the court granted on June 12,
2014. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 11, 2014. On July
31, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely
complied on August 21, 2014.
Preliminarily, any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived for appellate review. Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa.
395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005). An appellant’s concise statement must identify
the errors to be addressed on appeal with sufficient specificity.
Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa.Super. 2001). Thus, a Rule
1925(b) statement that is too vague for the trial court to identify and
address the issue(s) Appellant wishes to raise on appeal can result in waiver.
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied,
591 Pa. 712, 919 A.2d 956 (2007).
Here, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the search of Appellant’s
person and the vehicle he was operating. The suppression court conducted
two hearings at which Appellant argued the four corners of the affidavit for
the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause, the initial stop and
search of Appellant’s person was illegal, and the subsequent search of the
vehicle was fruit of the poisonous tree. Nevertheless, Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement only alleged generally that the suppression court erred in
denying his motion. The trial court determined Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
-2-
J-S30013-15
statement failed to specify how the suppression court erred (different jurist),
the current court should not be expected to guess the challenge, given the
multiple issues Appellant raised at his suppression hearings, and suggested
the issue was arguably waived. We conclude that Appellant’s issue is
waived.2 See id. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/19/2015
____________________________________________
2
Moreover, despite Appellant’s vague Rule 1925(b) statement, the trial
court recited the facts to support the suppression court’s decision that
probable cause existed to justify the search of Appellant’s person and
vehicle.
-3-