Com. v. James, D. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • J-S36023-21
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee                :
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    DIONIA JAMES                               :
    :
    Appellant               :       No. 336 EDA 2021
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 18, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008878-2015
    BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                         FILED DECEMBER 10, 2021
    Appellant, Dionia James, appeals pro se from the order entered in the
    Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her first petition
    filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
    9546. We affirm.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
    August 26, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of third-degree murder and
    possessing instruments of crime, in connection with the stabbing death of her
    ex-boyfriend. The court sentenced Appellant on November 9, 2016, to an
    aggregate 16 to 32 years’ imprisonment, plus five years’ probation. This Court
    affirmed the judgment of sentence on October 16, 2018, and our Supreme
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S36023-21
    Court    denied    allowance      of   appeal    on   February   26,   2019.   See
    Commonwealth v. James, 
    200 A.3d 566
     (Pa.Super. 2018) (unpublished
    memorandum), appeal denied, 
    651 Pa. 139
    , 
    203 A.3d 208
     (2019).
    On January 30, 2020, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. The
    court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and Turner/Finley
    “no-merit” letter,1 on October 14, 2020. On December 18, 2020, the court
    issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing per
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant did not respond. Prior to the court’s entry of a
    final order, Appellant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal on January 13,
    2021. The court denied PCRA relief and let counsel withdraw on January 20,
    2021.2 On February 22, 2021, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise
    statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
    did not comply with the court’s directive.
    As a preliminary matter, we must address Appellant’s failure to file a
    court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. Pennsylvania law makes clear:
    [A]ny issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
    deemed waived for appellate review. See Commonwealth
    v. Lord, 
    553 Pa. 415
    , 
    719 A.2d 306
    , 309 (1998). Further,
    an appellant’s concise statement must identify the errors
    with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify and
    ____________________________________________
    1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 
    518 Pa. 491
    , 
    544 A.2d 927
     (1988) and
    Commonwealth v. Finley, 
    550 A.2d 213
     (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
    2 Appellant’s premature notice of appeal relates forward to this date. See
    Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating notice of appeal filed after announcement of
    determination but before entry of appealable order shall be treated as filed
    after such entry and on date thereof).
    -2-
    J-S36023-21
    address the issues the appellant wishes to raise on appeal.
    See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (requiring a Rule 1925(b)
    statement to “concisely identify each ruling or error that the
    appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to
    identify all pertinent issues for the judge”). This Court [has]
    explained … that Pa.R.A.P. 1925 is a crucial component of
    the appellate process because it allows the trial court to
    identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise
    on appeal.
    Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 
    239 A.3d 1096
    , 1106 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal
    denied, ___ Pa. ___, 
    250 A.3d 468
     (2021).                  See also Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that issues not included in concise statement and/or
    not raised in accordance with rule are waived); Commonwealth v. Butler,
    
    571 Pa. 441
    , 
    812 A.2d 631
     (2002) (holding appellant’s failure to comply with
    PCRA court’s order to file Rule 1925(b) statement resulted in automatic waiver
    of any issues he may have raised on appeal; as issues not preserved for
    appellate review generally may not be considered by appellate court, Superior
    Court properly refused to address merits of appellant’s waived claims, even
    though Commonwealth had not briefed or argued Rule 1925 waiver).3
    ____________________________________________
    3 We recognize that Butler pre-dated the adoption of significant amendments
    to Rule 1925, effective July 25, 2007, which included a provision to remedy
    counsel’s failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement, which
    constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3).
    Here, however, Appellant was no longer entitled to the appointment of counsel
    once the court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw following the no-merit
    letter, so the onus was on Appellant to comply with the court’s directive. See
    Commonwealth v. Rykard, 
    55 A.3d 1177
     (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied,
    
    619 Pa. 714
    , 
    64 A.3d 631
     (2013) (explaining that when counsel has been
    appointed to represent PCRA petitioner and that right has been fully vindicated
    following grant of counsel’s petition to withdraw under Turner/Finley, court
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    -3-
    J-S36023-21
    Instantly, the PCRA court issued its Rule 1925(b) order on February 22,
    2021. The order makes clear that failure to comply with the court’s directive
    will result in waiver of the claims raised on appeal. The certificate of service
    indicates that the order was served on Appellant at her place of incarceration.
    Nevertheless, Appellant has not filed a Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore,
    Appellant’s issues are waived on appeal. See 
    id.
     Accordingly, we affirm.
    Order affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/10/2021
    ____________________________________________
    shall not appoint new counsel and appellant must look to his own resources
    for future proceedings).
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 336 EDA 2021

Judges: King, J.

Filed Date: 12/10/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/10/2021