J-S75012-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARK NORTON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1492 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 12, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000754-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2019

Mark Norton appeals pro se from the order entered in the Bucks County 

Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first petition brought pursuant to the 

Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. As Norton 

has failed to preserve any issues for our review, we affirm. 

On June 11, 2015, following a jury trial, Norton was convicted of retail 

theft, criminal conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime. The court 

sentenced Norton to an aggregate term of fifteen to sixty months’ 

imprisonment. This Court affirmed Norton’s judgment of sentence. Norton did 

not seek further review with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 

On June 1, 2017, Norton timely filed the instant PCRA petition. The court 

appointed counsel who filed an amended petition on August 4, 2017, 

expanding upon the ineffectiveness claims raised in Norton’s pro se filing. The 

PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on Norton’s petition on November 29, 
J-S75012-18

- 2 -

2017. Following the hearing, Norton’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion 

to withdraw and a Turner/Finley1letter. Ultimately, the PCRA court 

dismissed Norton’s petition and permitted PCRA counsel to withdraw. Norton 

filed a timely pro se notice of appeal2 and complied with the PCRA court’s Rule 

1925(b) order. 

Through his Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal,3

Norton asserted there was insufficient evidence supporting his convictions and 

that the trial court imposed fines and a sentence disproportionate to his 

convictions. See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 6/13/18, at ¶¶ 2-4. 

Further, Norton generally alleged “ineffective assistance of counsel(s)” and 

prejudice due to the Commonwealth “testify[ing] falsely.” Id., at ¶¶ 1, 5.

However, on appeal, Norton asks this Court to consider the following 

issues: 

1. Was [t]rial [c]ounsel ineffective by failing to secure cell phone 

records in order to introduce them at trial? 

____________________________________________

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

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

2 While the notice of appeal Norton filed on April 27, 2018 was technically 

defective, Norton corrected these defects by filing a compliant notice of appeal 

on May 11, 2018. 

3 Norton filed two Rule 1925(b) concise statements; one before the PCRA court 

ordered the filing of a concise statement on June 7, 2018 and one following 

the PCRA court’s order on June 13, 2018. As the June 13th statement contains 

all of the issues set forth in the June 7th statement, we will cite only to the 

June 13th statement.
J-S75012-18

- 3 -

2. Did [t]rial [c]ounsel fail to investigate the (Sales Clerk) witness 

whom [] Norton was speaking with, in order to support his nonparticipation in this criminal activity? 

3. Was [t]rial [c]ounsel ineffective by not objecting to assert [] 

Norton’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel and his 

corresponding State Constitutional right to counsel were

violated when the prosecution presented it [sic] self as its own 

witness who testified falsely?

Appellant’s Brief, at 5 (unpaginated).4

Prior to addressing the merits of Norton’s claims on appeal, we must 

determine which issues, if any, are preserved for our review. It is wellestablished that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be 

deemed waived for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 

306, 309 (Pa. 1998). Further, an appellant’s concise statement must identify 

the errors with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify and address 

the issues the appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(ii) (requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement to “concisely identify each 

ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to 

identify all pertinent issues for the judge”). A Rule 1925(b) concise statement 

that is too vague can result in waiver of issues on appeal. See 

Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“a 

____________________________________________

4 Norton makes a series of other arguments in his brief and reply brief. 

However, he has waived these arguments by failing to include them in his 

statement of questions involved on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No 

question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions 

involved or is fairly suggested thereby”). 
J-S75012-18

- 4 -

concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues 

raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all”).

Instantly, Norton argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

subpoena his cell phone records, interview a witness, and object to the 

Commonwealth’s “testimony.” See Appellant’s Brief, at 5 ¶¶ 1-3

(unpaginated). However, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, Norton only 

challenges the “ineffectiveness of counsel.” Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

Statement, 6/13/18, at ¶ 5. Because Norton failed to raise these specific 

aspects of his ineffectiveness argument in his Rule 1925(b) statement, the 

trial court was unable to identify and address these issues in its Rule 1925(a) 

statement.5 Therefore, Norton has waived all of his claims on appeal by failing 

to include specific allegations of ineffectiveness his Rule 1925(b) statement. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). 

Order Affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 While the PCRA court’s 1925(a) opinion did address a claim later raised in 

Norton’s appellate brief, i.e., that trial counsel’s failure to object to the phrase 

“CB radios” in the Commonwealth’s closing argument constituted ineffective 

assistance, this does not preserve Norton’s issue for review. See 

Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 A.2d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding “that 

when an appellant fails to identify in a vague Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement the 

specific issue he/she wants to raise on appeal, the issue is waived, even if the 

trial court guesses correctly and addresses the issue in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 

opinion”). It was Norton’s duty, not the PCRA court’s, to frame the issues he 

wanted addressed on appeal. See id. 
J-S75012-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/26/19