IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kyle J. Sampson

, : Appellant :

:

v. :

: Bureau of Administrative : No. 1296 C .D. 20 19 Adjudication : Submitted: September 25 , 2020

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON , Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 8, 2020

K yle J. Sampson (Sampson) appeals pro se from the Philadelphia

County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) August 15, 2019 order granting in part

and denying in part Sampson’s appeal from the City of Philadelphia’s Bureau of

Administrative Adjudication (BAA). 1 Sampson presents one issue for this C ourt’s

review: whether the trial court erred by not granting Sampson’s Motion for

Sanctions . After review, we quash Sampson’s appeal.

T he Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority ) issued Sampson three

parking citations (collectively

, T ickets) for violat ing various S ections of the

Philadelphia Traffic Code. 2 Sampson appealed from the Tickets to the BAA and

submitted documentation , i.e., a letter and photographs, to dispute the Tickets. After

review, a BAA hearing examiner determined that Sampson was lia ble for the

Tickets. Sampson appealed from the hearing examiner’ s decision, relying on the

1 The BAA is a finance unit under the City of Philadelphia’ s Office of the Director of Finance, which provides administrative hearings for the adjudication of disputed parking tickets pursuant to the Local Agency Law

, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 105, 551

- 55, 751

- 54.

2 The Philadelphia Code , Title 12, as amended , added by ordinance effective Ma y 6, 1958

.2

same letter and photographs submitted at his first hearing. On January 4, 2019, the

BAA Appeal Panel issued its written findings and determination affirming the BAA

hearing examiner ’s decision. On January 18, 2019, Sampson appealed from the

BAA Appeal Panel ’ s decision to the trial court. On August 15, 2019, the trial court

dismissed Ticket No. 769795675 and upheld Ticket Nos. 769537382 and

76653030 67.

On September 13, 2019, Sampson appealed to this Court. On

September 26, 2019, the trial court ordered Sampson to file a Concise Statement of

Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) (Rule 1925(b) Statement)

. Sampson failed to file a Rule 1925(b) S tatement. On November 18, 2019, the trial

court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion requesting that this Court dismiss the appeal for

Sampson’s failure to file his Rule 1925(b) Statement. By December 2, 2019 Order,

this Court directed the partie s to address in their principal briefs on the merits

, or
other appropriate motion

, whether Sampson preserved any issues on appeal in light

of his failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement

.

Concerning his failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement, Sampson

states:

[Sampson] failed to file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement]

.

[Sampson] respectfully seeks this Honorable Court’ s forgiveness. [Sampson] was confused as to what a

‘ Concise Statement of Matters ’ was. H e called the Clerk’ s Office of the Commonwealth Court. He was repeatedly told that ‘we didn’ t send you anything ’ or ‘that’ s not from

us [.]’ He was under the impression that once the matter left the [trial court] , he was done with that court and all matters were with the Commonwealth Court

. Again, [Sampson] [r] espectfully prays for this Honorable Court [’] s forgiveness.3

Sampson Br. at 2

- 3. 3 The BAA rejoins that t he trial court’ s order should be affirmed

because Sampson failed to file a Rule 1925(b) S tatement and, thus, waived any

issues on appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has long established in

Commonwealth v. Lord

, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), that a ny issues not raised in a Rule

1925(b) S tatement will be deemed waived. In Commonwealth v. Hill , 16 A.3d 484,

494 (Pa. 2011) , t he Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinforced its ruling in Lord

, explaining:

We yet again repeat the principle first stated in Lord that

must be applied here: ‘ [I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the tri al court orders them to file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement]

. Any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) [S] tatement will be deemed waived. ’ [ Lord ,] 719 A.2d at 309.

Hill , 16 A.3d at 494.

“[I] n determining whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal

based on non

- compliance with [Rule 1925(b)] , it is the trial court’s order that triggers

an appellant’s obligation under the rule, and, therefore, we look first to the language

of that order .” Berg v. N ationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.

, 6 A.3d 1002, 1007

- 08 (Pa.

2010) (plurality)

. In Berg , the issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme C ourt was

“[w] hether the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court erred in finding waiver of all appellate

issues for failing to serve the trial judge with a [ Rule 1925(b) S tatement], when the

trial judge’ s order directing a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement, failed to include language

mandated by paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (iv) of [] Rule 1925(b ) .” Berg , 6 A.3d at

1005.

3 This statement was part of Sampson’s “Statement of the Case.” Sampson did not reference his failure to file his Rule 1925(b) Statement elsewhere in his brief. Sampson Br. at 2.4 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:

[T] he trial court’ s order instructed Appellants to ‘ file with the [ c ] ourt, and a copy with the trial judge , a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b) within twenty

- one (21) days o f the issuance of this order. ’ Order, 1/3/08 (emphasis added). Despite any suggestion to the contrary, the express language of his order did not instruct [the a] ppellants to

serve a copy of their [Rule] 1925(b) Statement on the trial judge; rather, it di rected [the a] ppellants to file copies of their [Rule] 1925(b) Statement with the court and with the trial judge. Although the instruction to file a document with a trial judge is an oddity, we conclude [the a] ppellants substantially complied with this di rective by presenting a copy to the prothonotary of Berks County.

Berg , 6 A.3d at 1008. The Berg Court’s holding was limited to its facts

, as explained

therein :

[The Berg Court] h o ld [s] that the issues raised in [ the

a ] ppellants’ [ Rule ] 1925(b) Statement were not waived

, despite the fact that the statement was not personally served on the trial judge, where personal service was attempted by counsel and thwarted by the prothonotary, and where the [ trial ] court’s Rule 1925( [ b ] ) order speci fied ‘ filing ’ and not ‘ service. ’ [ 4 ]

4 Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme C ourt noted:

We do not mean to suggest . . . that the trial court’s order ‘ trumps Rule 1925(b). ’ See Dissenting Opinion

. . . , 6 A.3d at 1018. We simply recognize the unique position in which [ the a ] ppellants were placed as a result of the trial court’ s failure to adhere to the specific requirements of Rule 1925(b), the same rule under which

the dissent concludes [the a] ppellants ’ issues are waived.

Berg , 6 A.3d at 1010 n.16 (emphasis added). The Berg Court further noted: “ Our decision is based, in pa rt

. . . on [the a] ppellants ’ substantial compliance with the e xpress terms of the trial judge’ s order. ” Berg , 6 A.3d at 1010 n.17.5

Berg , 6 A.3d at 1012 (emphasis added).

Here, the trial court’s order directed :

[ Sampson ] must file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b). The [Rule] 1925(b) Statement shall be filed no later than twenty

- one (21) days after entry of th [e] [o]rder. Any issue not properly included in th[e] [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall be deemed waived.

Trial Ct. September 26, 2019 Order (Trial Ct. Order)

.

Rule 1925(b)(3) expressly requires:

Contents of order. The judge’ s order directing the filing and service of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall specify:

(i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’ s order within which the appellant must file and serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement;

(ii) that the [ Rule 1925(b) ] Statement shall be filed of record ;

(iii) that the [Rule 1 9 25(b)] Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement in person and the address to which the appellant [can] mail the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement on the judge; and

(iv) that any issue not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived

.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3) (emphasis added)

.

This Court recognizes that the trial court’s order did not comply with

Rule 1925(b) (3) (iii)

. However, the trial court is not requesting that the appeal be6

dismissed because Sampson did not serve the trial judge but

, rather, because

Sampson did not file a Rule 1925(b) Statement. Because the trial court’s order

specified that Sampson “must file” his Rule 1925(b) Statement, the time that the

Rule 1925(b) Statement “shall be filed

, ” and that any issue not included in the Rule

1925(b) Statement “ shall be deemed waived ,” Sampson was made fully aware of the

consequences of not filing a Rule 1925(b) Sta tement . Trial Ct. Order.

Moreover, Sam p son’s claim that he did not know what a Rule 1925(b)

Statement was, does not absolve him of his failure to file it.

This h olding comports with [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court’ s view on pro se litigants. See Vann v. Unemployment Comp [.] [ Bd. ] of Rev [.]

, . . . 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 ( [ Pa .] 1985) ( pro se litigant must to some extent assume the risk that his lack of legal training will prove his undoing); Commonwealth v. Abu

- Jamal

, . . . 555 A.2d 846, 852 ( [Pa.] 1989) ( pro se litigant ‘ is subject to same rules of procedure as is a counseled defendant; he h as no greater right to be heard than he would have if he were represented by an attorney ’ ); [ s ] ee also, Jones v. Rudenstein

, . . . 585 A.2d 520, 522 [(Pa. Super.)], appeal denied

, 600 A.2d 954 ( [Pa.] 1991) ( pro se litigant not absolved of complying with pr ocedural rules and courts have no affirmative duty to walk pro se litigant through the rules).

Peters Creek Sanitary Auth. v. Welch , 681 A.2d 167, 170 n.5 (Pa. 1996).

Accordingly, this Court is constrained to quash Sampson’s appeal for his failure to

file his Rule 1925(b) Statement as the trial court ordered

.

For all of the above reasons, Sampson’s appeal is quashed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kyle J. Sampson, : Appellant :

:

v. :

: Bureau of Administrative : No. 1296 C.D. 2019 Adjudication :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8 th day of December , 20 20

, Kyle J. Sampson’s appeal

from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court’s August 15, 2019 order is

QUASHED.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge