J-S57022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DESTINI ALLEN
Appellant No. 435 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Dated December 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-SA-0003487-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2017
Pro se Appellant Destini Allen appeals from the order of the trial court
dismissing the appeal of her convictions for violations of the Vehicle Code. 1
We affirm.
On September 10, 2016, Appellant was issue citations for violating 75
Pa.C.S. § 6308(a) (duties upon investigation by police officers) and 75
Pa.C.S. § 1543(a) (driving while operating privilege is suspended or
revoked). The citations stated that Appellant’s summary trial was scheduled
to be held in the Traffic Division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court on
November 14, 2016, and instructed Appellant that, “If you fail to appear for
the trial, you are consenting to the trial in your absence.” Appellant did not
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-9901.
J-S57022-17
appear on November 14, 2016, for her summary trial, and was accordingly
found guilty in absentia.
On November 30, 2016, Appellant appealed her convictions to the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The bottom of the appeal
form signed by Appellant included a “Hearing Notice” that instructed her to
appear in court on December 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., and informed her that
“Your appeal may be denied or dismissed if you fail to appear for the
conference or trial.” Appellant failed to appear on that date, and the trial
court accordingly dismissed her appeal and issued an order stating, “the
judgment of the Municipal Court Traffic Division is entered as the judgment
of the Court of Common Pleas.”
On January 23, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court.
On January 30, 2017, the trial court issued an order requiring Appellant to
“file no later than February 20, 2017” a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of
issues complained of on appeal. Appellant filed a statement with the trial
court which is dated February 20, 2017,2 but the statement was stamped by
the court as “Received” on February 21, 2017, and the trial court’s docket
lists it as having been filed on that date. The statement therefore was not
filed by the February 20, 2017 filing deadline set by the trial court. On
March 9, 2017, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion stating that
____________________________________________
2 The statement was not titled and does not conform to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
We elect to liberally construe the substance of Appellant’s statement as an
attempt to identify the issues that she wished to raise on appeal.
-2-
J-S57022-17
it had not received Appellant’s statement of issues and that all issues
therefore were waived.3
Appellant’s pro se brief explains her absences from court and discusses
the underlying events leading to her convictions, but it does not address the
timeliness of her Rule 1925(b) statement.
Pursuant to Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, failure to
timely comply with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement results
in appellate waiver. See Pa.R.A.P. 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”); Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775,
780 (Pa. 2005) (“in order to preserve their claims for appellate review,
appellants 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”)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)). This
bright line rule applies even to those who have filed an appeal pro se and
even when a statement is filed only one day late. See Commonwealth v.
Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Boniella,
158 A.3d 162, 164 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding pro se defendant waived
issues because Rule 1925(b) statement was filed one day late). Under these
____________________________________________
3 In a footnote, the trial court also noted that Appellant’s appeal should be
dismissed for her failure to order the transcript of the trial court proceeding
on December 23, 2016.
-3-
J-S57022-17
decisions, we therefore are constrained to hold that Appellant may not
obtain appellate relief.4
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/27/2017
____________________________________________
4 We have reviewed Appellant’s brief and the record. In her brief, Appellant
does not contest that she was driving a vehicle while her license had been
suspended and also does not contest that she missed the December 23,
2016 court appearance. Although she claims that she tried to get the court
date changed because of her employment obligations, no formal application
for a date change appears in the record. Therefore, even if Appellant had not
failed to meet the deadline for filing her Rule 1925(b) statement, she would
not be entitled to relief.
-4-