J-S80044-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EDWARD A. DANIELS,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2217 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 22, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000681-2006

BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2018

Edward A. Daniels (“Daniels”) appeals, pro se, from the Order 

dismissing his third Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction 

Relief Act. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On May 17, 2006, Daniels pled guilty to numerous offenses arising 

from the gunpoint robbery and gang rape of a female victim. The trial court 

sentenced Daniels to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years in prison. Daniels 

did not file a direct appeal.

On April 6, 2017, Daniels filed the instant pro se Petition, his third,1

arguing that the trial court committed “extraordinary circumstances” by 

____________________________________________

1 Although Daniels styled his Petition as an “Amendment to Already Filed 

P.C.R.A.,” Daniels’s prior Petitions had already been denied and dismissed. 

Therefore, the PCRA court properly considered Daniels’s filing as a third 

Petition.
J-S80044-17

- 2 -

failing to conduct a guilty plea colloquy. The Commonwealth filed an 

Answer. The PCRA court subsequently issued Notice of its intention to 

dismiss Daniels’s Petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. 

Daniels filed a Response. The PCRA court dismissed Daniels’s Petition as 

untimely filed on June 22, 2017.

Daniels filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The PCRA court entered an 

Order, directing Daniels to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of 

matters complained of on appeal, and instructing him that failure to do so 

within 21 days of the date of the Order would result in waiver of any issues. 

Daniels responded to the Order by claiming that he “[did] not know anything 

about an appeal being filed in the Superior Court.” 

On September 6, 2017, the PCRA court issued its Opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), noting that Daniels did not file a 1925(b) concise 

statement, and had “instead repudiate[d] any appeal which was clearly filed 

by him previously.” PCRA Court Opinion, 9/6/17, at 4. Thus, the PCRA 

court found that Daniels had waived any claims.

We agree that Daniels has waived the issues he presents in his pro se

brief by failing to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement. See 

Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (stating that “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. Any issues not raised 

in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” (citation and 
J-S80044-17

- 3 -

brackets omitted)).2 Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s Order 

dismissing Daniels’s Petition.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/26/18

____________________________________________

2 Even if Daniels had preserved his claims in a concise statement, we would 

lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claims on appeal, as his Petition 

is patently untimely, and he failed to plead and prove any of the exceptions 

set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii) to circumvent the PCRA’s 

timeliness requirement. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 

1095 (Pa. 2010).