J-S29036-17

J-S29037-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO CINTRON

Appellant No. 1503 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000249-2015

*****

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO CINTRON

Appellant No. 1506 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003117-2014

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.:FILED JUNE 12, 2017

I concur in part and dissent in part. 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29036-17

J-S29037-17

- 2 -

Unquestionably, the Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement in 1503 EDA 

20161 did not “concisely identify[] each ruling or error that [he] intend[ed] 

to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the trial 

judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). However, I would find that two issues,2

specifically those challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and 

excessiveness of sentence, were preserved on appeal. These issues were 

properly identified for the trial court in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement 

which enabled the trial court to sufficiently address those claims in its Rule 

1925(a) opinion and while the record indicates that no relief is due, the trial 

court improperly found them waived. Hence, my partial dissent.3 

____________________________________________

1

In 1506 EDA 2016, Appellant failed to file a timely Rule 1925(b) concise 

statement. For that reason the trial court found it “constitute[d] a waiver of 

all objections . . . [and, therefore,] no issues ha[d] been preserved for 

appeal. Trial Court Opinion, 6/21/16, at 3. 

2 While the trial court indicates that Appellant waived his weight of the 

evidence challenge by “failing to raise it in a post-sentence motion, or an 

oral or written pre-sentence motion . . . [and] generally makes this 

argument for the first time in his 1925(b) Statement,” Trial Court Opinion, 

10/4/16, at 15, we note that Appellant did raise a challenge to the weight in 

his Post-Trial Motion for Reconsideration. See Appellant’s Post-Trial Motion 

for Reconsideration, 12/28/15, at ¶ 28.

3

I remind appellate counsel that if the lack of conciseness and specificity in 

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was a result of the fact that she had not 

yet received all of the “Notes of all Hearings, Motions, and Trial,” at the time 

she filed her initial statement, see Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of 

Errors Complained of on Appeal, 7/13/16, at 1, counsel should have followed 

the prescribed procedure to supplement the statement set forth in Rule 

1925(b)(2). Merely stating that counsel “reserves the right to farther [sic] 

supplement” the statement is not the equivalent of applying to the trial court 

and having her request granted by the court “for good cause shown.” See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2).