J

- S08023

- 19

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN TALIAFERRO,

Appellant. :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1023 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, May 4, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0001975

- 2009.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 0 6 , 2019
John Taliaferro appeals , nunc pro tunc , from a judgment of sentence

entered on May 4, 2017.

A fter reinstating Taliaferro’s right of direct appeal , the trial court orde red
him to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) by April

12, 2017

. See 3/22/17 Order. The Order cautioned that any issues not raised

in a timely 1925(b) statement would be deemed waived. See id. (citing

Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v.

Schofield , 888 A.2d 771 (Pa. 2005); Greater Erie Industrial Development
Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( en

banc )).
On April 11, 2017, Taliaferro ’s counsel filed a timely 1925(b) statement
raising two issues

– (1) whether the Commonwealth produced sufficientJ

- S08023

- 19

- 2

-

evidence at trial to support his convictions and (2) whether the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. The trial court issued its 1925(a) Opinion
explaining that those two claims lacked merit

. See Trial Court Opinion,

6/21/17.
In his brief, Taliaferro then raised the following t hree issues :

1. Whether the record supports the common pleas court’s factual conclusion s at the suppression hearing ?

2. Whether the court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by ruling that the facts in the affidavit of probable cause were credible?

3. Whether the court erred by declining to hear evidence on his PCRA petition ?

See Taliaferro’s Brief at vii. N one of tho s e issues match the two in Taliaferro ’s
1925(b) statement , so we may not reach their merits

. 1 See Commonwealth

v. Lord , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (mandating that “ from this date
forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate re view, 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. ”).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Taliaferro listed the issues in his appellate brief in a second, pro se 1925(b) statement, filed May 1, 2017. Even if he were entitled to hybrid representation (and he is not), Taliaferro’s second 1925(b) statement was three weeks late. The trial court ordered that a 1925(b) statement be filed with it no later than April 12, 2017, and it granted no extension of time. Ther efore, the trial court did not address any of the issues in Taliaferro’s second, pro se 1925(b) statement

. Nor shall we.J

- S08023

- 19

- 3

-

Because Taliaferro violated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and Lord , his three issues
on appeal are waived

. Judgment of sentence affirmed

. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/6/19