J. S06043/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

JAMIR EDMONDS : No. 2506 EDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 7, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0001936-2013

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: Filed: March 18, 2020

Jamir Edmonds appeals pro se from the August 7, 2019 order 

dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts of this case were summarized by the trial court on 

direct appeal and are not necessary to our disposition. (See trial court 

opinion, 3/26/15 at 1-3.) The pertinent procedural history of this case, as 

gleaned from the certified record, is as follows: On May 1, 2014, a jury found 

appellant guilty of first-degree murder1in connection with the shooting death 

of Edward Taylor in Chester, Pennsylvania. The trial court sentenced appellant 

to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on July 10, 2014. On October 30, 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
J. S06043/20

- 2 -

2015, a panel of this court affirmed appellant’s judgment of sentence, and our 

supreme court denied allowance of appeal on March 23, 2016. See

Commonwealth v. Edmonds, 134 A.3d 109 (Pa.Super. 2015) (unpublished 

memorandum), appeal denied, 135 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2016). Appellant did not 

file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United 

States. 

On November 10, 2016, appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition,

and Stephen D. Molineux, Esq. (“PCRA counsel”), was appointed to represent 

him. On November 2, 2017, appellant filed a pro se motion requesting that 

the PCRA court appoint alternative counsel. On January 9, 2018, the PCRA 

court entered an order denying appellant’s request. PCRA counsel 

subsequently filed a “no-merit” letter and petition to withdraw in accordance 

with Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc), 

concluding that there existed no meritorious issues to raise on appellant’s

behalf. Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s “no merit” letter on 

June 18, 2019. On July 3, 2019, the PCRA court granted counsel permission 

to withdraw and provided appellant with notice of its intention to dismiss his 

petition without a hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Thereafter, on 

August 7, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed appellant’s PCRA petition.

Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on August 27, 2019. On 

August 29, 2019, the PCRA court ordered appellant to file a concise statement 
J. S06043/20

- 3 -

of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 

within 21 days. Appellant failed to comply with the PCRA court’s order. The 

record contains no indication that appellant sought, or that the PCRA court 

granted, an extension of time for filing. The PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on October 9, 2019, concluding that appellant waived all his claims for 

failing to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and, alternatively, his ineffectiveness 

claims are devoid of merit. (See PCRA court opinion, 10/9/19 at 2-6.)

On appeal, appellant raises multiple allegations of ineffectiveness on the 

part of both his trial counsel2 and PCRA counsel. (See appellant’s brief at 6.)

Prior to any consideration of the merits of appellant’s claims, we must 

address whether appellant preserved his issues for review. Our supreme court 

has long recognized that “Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, 

which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when 

so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed 

waived.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011); see also

Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005) (stating that

“failure to comply with the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will 

result in automatic waiver of the issues raised.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) 

(stating, “[i]ssues . . . not raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). This is true even if the PCRA court has 

authored an opinion addressing what it perceives to be the issues appellant 

 

2 Appellant was represented at trial by Scott David Galloway, Esq.
J. S06043/20

- 4 -

will raise on appeal, as is the case here. See Commonwealth v. 

Parrish, A.3d , 2020 WL 355016, at *15 (Pa. January 22, 2020)

(stating, “the mere fact that a court has authored an opinion addressing 

potential appellate issues does not excuse an appellant from complying with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).”).

In Greater Erie Industrial Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 

88 A.3d 222 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), a panel of this court declared that,

it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to review 

the merits of an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement 

based solely on the trial court’s decision to address 

the merits of those untimely raised issues. Under 

current precedent, even if a trial court ignores the 

untimeliness of a Rule 1925(b) statement and 

addresses the merits, those claims still must be 

considered waived[.]

Id. at 225. The Greater Erie court further stated that,

there are still operative exceptions to Rule 1925(b) 

waiver with regard to timeliness. In determining 

whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal 

based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, it is 

the trial court’s order that triggers an appellant’s 

obligation . . . therefore, we look first to the language 

of that order.

Id. (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

Here, a review of the record reveals that the PCRA court’s Rule 1925(b) 

order complied with the requirements of Subsections (b)(3)(i)-(iv). 

Specifically, the Rule 1925(b) order directed appellant to file and serve “upon 

the undersigned” his concise statement within 21 days of the date the order 

is docketed, or by September 19, 2019. (Concise statement order, 8/29/19 
J. S06043/20

- 5 -

at ¶¶ 1-3.) The Rule 1925(b) order also tracked the language of 

Subsection (b)(3)(iv), informing appellant that “[a]ny issues not properly 

included in the Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal filed 

and served pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) shall be waived.” 

(Id. at ¶ 4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv).) Additionally, the record 

indicates that the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order was docketed on August 29, 

2019, and was forwarded to the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office 

and pro se appellant. Accordingly, because the record demonstrates that 

appellant failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement in accordance with the PCRA 

court’s directive, we find all of appellant’s issues waived.

3

 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/18/20

 

3 Alternatively, even if appellant had not waived his claims on appeal, we agree 

with the PCRA court’s well-reasoned conclusions that appellant’s allegations 

of ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel warrant no relief. (See

PCRA court opinion, 10/9/19 at 3-6.)