J-S09010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEPHEN A. EVANS
Appellant No. 1179 MDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000448-2010
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 15, 2016
Appellant, Stephen A. Evans, appeals from the order dismissing his
petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) without a
hearing. After a careful review, we find that all of Evans’s issues on appeal
have been waived due to his failure to file a statement of matters
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). We therefore affirm.
A jury convicted Evans of multiple counts arising from a jewelry store
robbery. After exhausting his direct appellate rights, Evans filed a timely pro
se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed to represent Evans, but she
subsequently was released from the case by the PCRA court. The PCRA court
gave notice of its intent to dismiss Evans’s petition without a hearing. After
reviewing Evans’s pro se response, the PCRA court entered an order
dismissing the petition on May 5, 2015. This timely appeal followed.
J-S09010-16
On July 15, 2015, the PCRA court directed Evans to file a statement of
matters complained of an appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Evans
concedes that he never filed a response to the trial court’s order. See
Appellant’s Reply Brief, at 5.
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 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).
Accordingly, Evans has waived his issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
-2-
J-S09010-16
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/15/2016
-3-