Com. v. Cole, J. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S08017-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    JAMES CHARLES COLE
    Appellant                   No. 615 WDA 2016
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0015767-2012
    BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J.
    CONCURRING STATEMENT BY GANTMAN, P.J.:                FILED MAY 26, 2017
    While I agree Appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing issue is
    waived for purposes of our review, I do so based on other grounds; I
    respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Appellant waived or
    abandoned his request for reinstatement of his post-sentence motion rights
    nunc pro tunc in his response to the court’s Rule 907 notice. In my view,
    Appellant consistently requested reinstatement of his post-sentence motion
    rights nunc pro tunc throughout the PCRA proceedings.
    Nevertheless, “the failure to raise an issue in an ordered Rule 1925(b)
    statement results in waiver of that issue on appeal.”   Commonwealth v.
    Poncala, 
    915 A.2d 97
    , 100 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 
    594 Pa. 678
    ,
    
    932 A.2d 1287
    (2007). Additionally, “[t]he failure to develop an adequate
    argument in an appellate brief may result in waiver of the claim.”
    J-S08017-17
    Commonwealth v. Beshore, 
    916 A.2d 1128
    , 1140 (Pa.Super. 2007),
    appeal denied, 
    603 Pa. 679
    , 
    982 A.2d 509
    (2007). Here, Appellant did not
    challenge the PCRA court’s failure to reinstate his post-sentence motion
    rights nunc pro tunc in either his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement or
    his appellate brief.   Thus, I agree Appellant waived any challenge to the
    PCRA court’s failure to reinstate Appellant’s post-sentence motion rights
    nunc pro tunc, but I do so based on the limited grounds of Rule 1925(b) and
    Beshore, supra. Accordingly, I concur in the result.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Cole, J. No. 615 WDA 2016

Filed Date: 5/26/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/26/2017