J-S18012-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT BENJAMIN GOHLMAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1266 WDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 6, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-CR-0000438-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 5, 2024

The Crawford County Court of Common Pleas entered an order 

dismissing Robert Benjamin Gohlman’s third petition filed pursuant to the Post 

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

we agree with the PCRA court that Gohlman has waived any issues for appeal 

by failing to file a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, we affirm.

The procedural history relevant to this appeal begins when Gohlman 

filed a pro se, third PCRA petition on September 1, 2023. The PCRA court 

issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a 

hearing on the basis that the petition was untimely under the PCRA. Gohlman 

filed a pro se response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice of intent, though 
J-S18012-24

- 2 -

his response did not address the timeliness of his petition. The court entered 

an order denying Gohlman’s third PCRA petition on October 6, 2023.

Gohlman filed a pro se notice of appeal. By an order entered on October 

23, 2023, the PCRA court directed Gohlman to file of record and serve the 

PCRA court with a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days from the date of the order’s entry on the 

docket. The order informed Gohlman that he could file the statement in person 

or by mail at a specified address, or by fax, with the fax number provided. 

See Order, 10/23/2023, at 1. It also cautioned Gohlman that “any issue not 

properly included in the Statement timely filed and served as directed above 

shall be deemed waived.” Id. at 2. The order further informed Gohlman that 

he could file an application to enlarge the time period specified in the order 

for filing the statement. See id.

Gohlman did not file a statement or an application to extend the time 

period for filing. The PCRA court therefore issued a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion stating that Gohlman’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement 

or to request an extension of the time to file the statement waived any issues 

Gohlman wished to raise on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); 

Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 2002) (holding that a 

PCRA appellant’s failure to comply with the PCRA court’s order to file a Rule 

1925(b) statement “result[s] in the automatic waiver of any issues he may 

have raised on appeal”). 
J-S18012-24

- 3 -

We agree with the PCRA court that Gohlman’s failure to file the courtordered Rule 1925(b) statement renders any issues raised on appeal waived. 

In his appellate brief, Gohlman raises six statements in his “Index of Issues,” 

with most of the statements sounding in sufficiency challenges and with the 

sixth one simply stating “problems.” Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unpaginated). 

Importantly, none of these issues have anything to do with his failure to 

comply with the court’s directive to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Nor does 

Gohlman address this fatal failure anywhere in his rambling, single-spaced 

brief. Because of Gohlman’s failure to file the Rule 1925(b) statement ordered 

by the PCRA court, the issues he attempts to raise on appeal are waived. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Butler, 812 A.2d at 634.

Order affirmed.

DATE: 8/5/2024