J-A30026-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

JOSEPH F. RAYNOCK, JR. 

 Appellant No. 3279 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 1, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-SA-0000676-2013 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J.*

 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2014 

 Appellant, Joseph F. Raynock, Jr., appeals pro se from the November 

1, 2013 judgment of sentence of a $300.00 fine, imposed after he was found 

guilty of one count of violations of rules regarding conduct on 

Commonwealth property.1

 After careful review, we affirm. 

 On December 2, 2013, the trial court entered an order directing 

Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), within 21 

days. The trial court’s docket indicates it mailed Appellant a copy of the 

order the same day; therefore, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was due 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7506(a). 
J-A30026-14

- 2 - 

on December 23, 2013. Appellant filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on 

December 30, 2013.2

 By its plain text, Rule 1925(b) requires every “[a]ppellant [to] file of 

record [a Rule 1925(b)] Statement and concurrently [] serve the judge” 

when directed to do so. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). The Rule also states “that 

any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served 

pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.” Id. at 1925(b)(3)(iv). 

Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line rule. 

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). 

As noted above, the trial court’s order required that Appellant file his 

Rule 1925(b) statement no later than December 23, 2013. Appellant filed 

his statement on December 30, 2013. As Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement was filed a week late, following our Supreme Court’s instructions 

in Hill, we deem all of Appellant’s issues on appeal waived.3 See id.

____________________________________________ 

2

 In addition to being stamped as filed on December 30, 2013 in the trial 

court, we also note that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was dated 

December 30, 2013. 

3 Even if Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was timely filed, we would still 

be required to find waiver. In his brief, Appellant raises two separate issues. 

First, Appellant argues that he did not receive notice of his summary trial 

date. Appellant’s Brief at 15. Second, Appellant argues the trial court’s 

docketing of the notice he was sent did not comply with Pennsylvania Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 114. Id. at 19. Neither of these issues were raised in 

his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, we would deem these issues 

waived. See Hill, supra; accord Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-A30026-14

- 3 - 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that both of Appellant’s issues 

are waived for failure to timely file his Rule 1925(b) statement. Accordingly, 

the trial court’s November 1, 2013 judgment of sentence is affirmed.

 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case stricken from argument list. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/6/2014 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

“[i]ssues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with 

the provisions of [Rule 1925](b)(4) are waived[]”).