Title: Comm. v. Lord (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

J-213-1996 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 2 Eastern District : Appeal Docket 1996 Appellee, : : Appeal from the Memorandum : Opinion of the Superior v. : Court, No. 03335 : Philadelphia 1994, entered FRANK LORD, : May 24, 1995, affirming the : Order of the Court of Common Appellant : Pleas of Delaware County : Order No. 5585 of 1992, : entered November 23, 1994. : : ARGUED: October 18, 1996 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: October 28, 1998 Although I concur in the result reached by the Majority, I write separately to clarify the interplay between Rule 1410(B)(1)(c) and Rule 1925(b). The Majority notes that, “the potential for construing Rule 1410 as the exclusive provision for preserving an appellate issue is understandable.” Majority Slip Opinion, at 6. I wish to emphasize that, while such an interpretation of Rule 1410 is “understandable,” it is nonetheless incorrect. Where the trial court orders an appellant to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), Rule 1410(B)(1)(c) will not save any issues omitted from such a statement from being waived.