IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kyle J. Sampson, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

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

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

Kyle 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 Court’s 

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

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

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) issued Sampson three 

parking citations (collectively, Tickets) for violating various Sections 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 liable 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 May 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

7665303067. 

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) Statement. 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 parties 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. He 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 the trial court’s order should be affirmed 

because Sampson failed to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement 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 any issues not raised in a Rule 

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

494 (Pa. 2011), the 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 trial 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. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 6 A.3d 1002, 1007-08 (Pa. 

2010) (plurality). In Berg, the issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 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) Statement], 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 of 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 directed [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 directive 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] hold[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 

specified ‘filing’ and not ‘service.’

[4]

4

Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 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 part . . . on [the a]ppellants’ substantial compliance with the express 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 1925(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 be 
6

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) Statement. Trial Ct. Order. 

Moreover, Sampson’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 holding 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 

has 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 procedural 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, Judge
IN 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, 2020, Kyle J. Sampson’s appeal 

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

QUASHED.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge