J. S14005/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
BRETT MARTIN PETERS, : No. 715 MDA 2015
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No. CP-67-CR-0003267-1996
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 08, 2016
Brett Martin Peters appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s April 8, 2015
order denying his petition for expungement of his conviction of harassment
from April 8, 1997. Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the trial court on
April 21, 2015, and the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant failed to comply with the trial court’s order,
and as a result, his issue on appeal is waived.
As noted by the trial court, our supreme court has explicitly stated that
a failure to produce a Rule 1925 statement will result in an appellant’s issues
being waived on appeal.
Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and
firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a
simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S14005/16
to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so
ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b)
statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack
the authority to countenance deviations from the
Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to
ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement;
appellants and their counsel are responsible for
complying with the Rule’s requirements; Rule 1925
violations may be raised by the appellate court
sua sponte, and the Rule applies notwithstanding
an appellee’s request not to enforce it; and, if Rule
1925 is not clear as to what is required of an
appellant, on-the-record actions taken by the
appellant aimed at compliance may satisfy the Rule.
We yet again repeat the principle first stated in
[Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa.
1998)], that must be applied here: “[I]n order to
preserve their claims for appellate review,
[a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court
orders them to file a Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement will be deemed waived.”
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011).
Moreover, even if appellant had filed a Rule 1925 statement, his brief
failed to include citations to relevant statutes or case law, and, as a result,
his claim would have been deemed waived for the purposes of appeal.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b-c). See also Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147,
164 (Pa.Super. 2011); Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310, 340
(Pa. 2007).
Appeal dismissed.
-2-
J. S14005/16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/8/2016
-3-