J-S94025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
RONALD WILLIAM NEETZ
Appellant No. 752 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 22, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-18-CR-0000233-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2017
Appellant, Ronald William Neetz, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered February 22, 2016. We affirm.
On December 17, 2015, a jury convicted Appellant of failure to comply
with registration of sexual offender requirements. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1.
On February 22, 2016, Appellant received a mandatory minimum sentence
of three years to six years of incarceration. Appellant timely filed a post
sentence motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied April 29,
2016.
Appellant timely appealed. By order dated May 20, 2016, and
docketed May 23, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S94025-16
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Accordingly, Appellant’s statement was due on or before June 13, 2016.
Appellant filed his statement of errors complained of on appeal on July 12,
2016.
Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed the bright-line rule requiring
Appellants to comply with trial court orders for a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 88 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005).
Any issue not included in a Rule 1925(b) statement is deemed waived. Id.
Further, an en banc panel of this Court has held that it is no longer within
this Court’s discretion to review the merits of an untimely Rule 1925(b)
statement; whenever a trial court orders an appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal, the appellant must comply in a
timely manner. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle
Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-25 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (emphasis
in original).
Here, the record reflects that on May 23, 2016, the trial court issued
an order in technical compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), requiring Appellant
to file a statement no later than twenty-one days after the entry of the
order. See Concise Statement Order, 5/20/16, at 1. The order provided
that any issue not properly included in the statement timely filed and served
pursuant to [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) would be deemed waived. Id. Appellant
filed his statement on July 12, 2016, which was a full thirty days late.
-2-
J-S94025-16
As Appellant did not timely file his Rule 1925(b) statement, he has
failed to comply with the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Consequently, he has waived all of his issues on appeal, and we may not
address the merits of his claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also
Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., 88 A.3d at 224-225.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum.
Justice Fitzgerald files a concurring memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/30/2017
-3-