J-S79045-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

LEWIS BROOKS, :

:

Appellant : No. 2242 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0014184-2012; 

MC-51-CR-0036240-2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 23, 2016

Lewis Brooks (“Brooks”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his convictions of aggravated assault, possessing an 

instrument of crime, simple assault and recklessly endangering another 

person.1 We affirm.

The trial court concisely set forth the relevant facts as follows:

On September 5, 2012, the complaining witness, [Keith] 

Johnson [(“Johnson”),] was driving in the area of 58th and Willow 

[Streets] in Philadelphia. At that location, [Johnson] observed 

[Brooks] driving a red Chevy Blazer.[FN] Both men had a heated 

exchange of words[,] and [Brooks] told [Johnson] to follow him, 

which he did. After a short period of time, [Johnson] turned off 

from following [Brooks] and instead went to a client’s house on 

Florence [Avenue]. As he exited his truck, [Johnson] observed 

[Brooks] driving straight towards him in his vehicle. [Brooks] 

struck [Johnson] with his vehicle, causing [Johnson] to impact 

the windshield. [Johnson] was hospitalized for two months and 

suffered multiple fractures to his legs and scarring on his head.

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 907(a), 2701(a), 2705.
J-S79045-16

- 2 -

[FN] [Johnson] and [Brooks] were having some animosity before 

this incident due to the fact that [Johnson] was the former 

paramour of [Brooks’s] wife.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/15, at 2 (internal citations omitted).

Following a bench trial, Brooks was convicted of the above-mentioned 

crimes. The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence 

investigation report. On June 17, 2014, the trial court sentenced Brooks to 

an aggregate term of 6 to 12 years in prison.

Brooks filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court 

denied. Brooks filed a Notice of Appeal, and the trial court ordered Brooks 

to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement. Brooks’s counsel did not 

respond to the Order, and the trial court subsequently appointed Brooks new 

counsel. On March 18, 2015, the trial court issued a new Order directing 

Brooks to file a Concise Statement within 21 days. However, Brooks, 

through counsel, did not file his Concise Statement until May 12, 2015.2 

Nevertheless, the trial court accepted Brooks’s Concise Statement and 

addressed his claims in its Opinion.

On appeal, Brooks raises the following issue for our review: “Did the 

court commit error by convicting [Brooks] of the charges[,] where the 

evidence at trial was insufficient to [] disprove beyond a reasonable doubt

 

2 The trial court’s Order complied with the requirements of Rule 1925(b), 

and was properly served on Brooks’s counsel pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 114. 

Additionally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Brooks sought an 

extension of time for filing his Concise Statement.
J-S79045-16

- 3 -

that [Brooks] acted in self[-]defense?” Brief for Appellant at 2.

Before addressing the merits of Brooks’s claims, we must determine 

whether Brooks has properly preserved this issue for our review, as required 

by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 

1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that “in order to preserve 

their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the 

trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement 

will be deemed waived.” Lord, 719 at 309; see also Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii) (providing that “[i]ssues ... not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).3 This Court, sitting en 

banc, recently reconsidered the issue, and held that, following the Supreme 

Court’s decisions in Castillo and Schofield, 

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: Whenever 

 

3

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lord, this Court briefly allowed 

the discretionary review of appeals where the trial court accepted an 

untimely Rule 1925(b) statement and addressed the issues raised in its Rule 

1925(b) opinion. See Commonwealth v. Aslop, 799 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 

2002); Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 745 A.2d 662 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

However, the Supreme Court specifically disapproved of this exception, and 

re-affirmed Lord’s bright-line rule. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 

A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005); 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.”).
J-S79045-16

- 4 -

a trial court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), the 

appellant must comply in a timely manner.

Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 

222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted). Therefore, because Brooks’s Rule 1925(b) Concise 

Statement was untimely filed, his claim is waived. See id. at 227 

(concluding that the appellant’s issues were waived for failure to file a timely 

Rule 1925(b) statement).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/23/2016
J-S79045-16

- 5 -