J-S61012-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBIN DIANE SMITH
APPEAL OF: A+ BAIL BONDS, LLC No. 711 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order March 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0002058-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 05, 2015
Appellant, A+ Bail Bonds, LLC, appeals from the order entered March
20, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, which denied
its Motion to Vacate Bail Forfeiture and to Exonerate the Surety. No relief is
due.
A detailed recitation of the facts of this case is unnecessary to our
disposition. Briefly, on April 20, 2015, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from
the trial court’s order denying its Motion to Vacate Bail Forfeiture and to
Exonerate the Surety. On April 22, 2015, the trial court entered an order
directing Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of matters
complained of on appeal “no later than twenty-five (25) days after the date
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S61012-15
of the entry of this Order.” Appellant therefore had until May 18, 2015, to
file a timely 1925(b) statement pursuant to the court’s order.1 Appellant’s
concise statement, dated May 20, 2015, was not filed until May 26, 2015.
By either date, it was untimely.
In Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005), our
Supreme Court reaffirmed the bright-line rule announced in
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) requiring appellants to
comply with trial court orders for a Rule 1925(b) statement. The decision in
Lord made it clear that any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement
will be deemed waived. See Lord, 719 A.2d at 309. The Castillo Court
expressly disapproved of prior decisions that carved out exceptions to that
rule. See 888 A.2d at 780.
We recently reiterated the “automatic nature” of the waiver of issues
for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and that “we are required to address
the issue once it comes to our attention.” Greater Erie Indus.
Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (en banc). In Presque Isle Downs, the en banc panel
examined Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases construing Rule 1925(b) and
noted that “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than
stringent application of waiver pursuant” to that rule. Id. (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
1
The twenty-fifth day, May 17, 2015, was a Sunday.
-2-
J-S61012-15
Instantly, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was patently untimely.
Even though the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) order addressing the
claims raised in Appellant’s untimely concise statement, we are without
discretion to review the merits of an untimely 1925(b) statement. “Under
current precedent, even if a trial court ignores the untimeliness of a Rule
1925(b) statement and addresses the merits, those claims still must be
considered waived: ‘Whenever a trial court orders an appellant to file a
concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule
1925(b), the appellant must comply in a timely manner.’” Id., at 225
(citations omitted).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has waived its issues on appeal for
failing to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/5/2015
-3-