J-S43002-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

FRANCIS IVAN SMITH, III

Appellant No. 626 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed October 18, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No: CP-02-CR-0001502-2015

BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW, and NICHOLS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2018

Appellant, Francis Ivan Smith, III, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence imposed on October 18, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County. Upon review, we affirm.

As the trial court explained:

On August 15, 2016, a jury found Appellant [] guilty of resisting 

arrest and disorderly conduct.1 This court, on October 18, 2017, 

sentenced Appellant to nine to twenty-four months of 

incarceration on the resisting arrest count and no further penalty 

at the disorderly conduct count. Appellant’s post-sentence motion 

was denied on March 27, 2017. Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on April 25, 2017 and a concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal on June 16, 2017. 

Additionally, counsel for Appellant filed a motion to withdraw on 

June 6, 2017. In that motion, counsel alleged that Appellant was 

unhappy that counsel would not raise certain matters on appeal. 

Counsel further asserted that he informed Appellant that, as an 

attorney, counsel was ethically unable to raise some of Appellant’s 

requested issues. This court denied the motion on June 22, 2017. 
J-S43002-18

- 2 -

On July 5, 2017, counsel filed a second motion to withdraw, this 

time alleging that Appellant wished to fire counsel and represent 

himself. This court conducted a Grazier2 hearing on August 16, 

2017. At the Grazier hearing, Appellant initially indicated that he 

was not firing his attorney, then said that he was firing his 

attorney. During the Grazier colloquy, however, Appellant stated 

that he was not waiving his right to counsel of his own free will. 

As a result, this court found that Appellant was not voluntarily 

waiving his right to counsel and in order to protect Appellant’s 

legal interests, this court denied the second motion to withdraw. 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104 and 5503(a)(1), respectively.

2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 8/18/17, at 1-2 (some capitalization and 

additional footnote omitted). 

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained that Appellant 

alleged three errors on appeal as follows:

Appellant alleges his verdicts were against the weight of the 

evidence. Next, Appellant alleges that the verdicts were 

insufficient to establish the elements of resisting arrest and 

disorderly conduct. Lastly, Appellant alleges this court abused its 

discretion in sentencing [him] in the aggravated range in the 

absence of substantial sentencing factors.

Id. at 2 (citing Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement of errors at 3-4) (some 

capitalization omitted). 

The trial court examined each of the three issues presented in 

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, with citations to case law and the 

transcript of Appellant’s jury trial, and concluded the verdicts were not against 

the weight of the evidence, that the evidence was sufficient to support the 

verdicts, and that the court properly exercised its discretion by imposing an 

aggravated range sentence for resisting arrest. Id. at 3-10.
J-S43002-18

- 3 -

Appellant’s counsel requested and was granted an extension to file 

Appellant’s brief with this Court. Order, 10/5/17. On October 13, 2017, 

Appellant filed a motion to proceed pro se. On October 24, we remanded to 

the trial court for a Grazier hearing. By order of January 9, 2018, the trial 

court determined “that Appellant has made a knowing, voluntary and 

intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and indicated his desire to proceed in 

this matter pro se. Having met this standard, Appellant is permitted to 

proceed pro se and remains in forma pauperis.” Trial Court Order, 1/9/18, at 

1.

On March 22, 2018, we dismissed Appellant’s appeal for failure to file a 

brief in accordance with the briefing schedule, which established February 20, 

2018 as the deadline for filing his brief. Appellant requested reinstatement of 

his appeal and this Court granted his request, setting May 7, 2018 as the new 

deadline for filing his brief. Order, 4/10/18, at 1. Appellant complied. 

In his “Statement of the Questions Involved,” Appellant presents the 

following seven issues:

1. Did the trial court err when it committed a myriad of violations 

of the Mental Health Procedures Act culminating in: the 

constructive denial of counsel at a critical state, an unlawful 

involuntary committment (sic) and a Rule 600/6th Amendment 

speedy trial right’s violation?

2. Did the trial court err when it allowed [Appellant] to proceed 

pro se and appointed standby counsel without conducting a 

waiver colloquy as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 121? 
J-S43002-18

- 4 -

3. Did the trial court err when it excluded [Appellant] from his 

trial for exercising his 6th Amendment right to counsel?

4. Did the trial court err when it denied a suppression motion for 

technical violations [Appellant] was neither arrested nor 

charged with violating?

5. Did the trial court err when it failed to recuse itself from the 

recusal hearing on allegations challenging the court’s integrity 

and summarily dismissing the motion without developing the 

record?

6. Did the trial court err when it sentenced [Appellant] in the 

aggravated range based on a competency evaluation that he 

neither consented to nor was [Appellant] assisted by counsel 

in deciding whether to comply with the evaluation?

7. Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance for the 

following: failing to represent [Appellant] at two competency 

hearings, failing to represent [Appellant] after he was declared 

incompetent, failing to raise the illegality of 37 Pa. Code 65.4[,] 

failing to raise the illegality of the burglary convictions 18 

Pa.C.S. [§] 3502(d) and failing to raise the illegality of the 

sentence modification per 42 Pa.C.S. [§] 5505?

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4. 

As indicated above, the three issues raised in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement included weight of the evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, and 

abuse of discretion with respect to the sentence imposed for resisting arrest. 

However, his Statement of Questions Involved reveals that Appellant is now 

asking us to consider seven issues, the first five of which are unrelated to any 

of the issues preserved for appellate review. As this Court has recognized:

It is well settled that issues not raised before the trial court cannot 

be advanced for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
J-S43002-18

- 5 -

Issue preservation is foundational to proper appellate 

review. . . . By requiring that an issue be considered waived 

if raised for the first time on appeal, our courts ensure that 

the trial court that initially hears a dispute has had an 

opportunity to consider the issue. This jurisprudential 

mandate is also grounded upon the principle that a trial 

court . . . must be given the opportunity to correct its errors 

as early as possible. Related thereto, we have explained in 

detail the importance of this preservation requirement as it 

advances the orderly and efficient use of our judicial 

resources. Finally, concepts of fairness and expense to the 

parties are implicated as well.

In re F.C. III, 607 Pa. 45, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (2010) (citations 

omitted) (finding appellant’s constitutional claims waived where 

he failed to raise them before the lower court, depriving that 

tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule upon them); see 

also Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 295 Pa. Super. 429, 441 A.2d 

1308, 1312, n.6 (1982) (even issues of constitutional dimension 

cannot be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

302(a)). Appellant’s failure to raise his constitutional claims

before the trial court impedes appellate review, and his failure to 

develop the record before the trial court interferes with our ability 

to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the issues raised in 

Appellant’s brief.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 80 A.3d 806, 811 (Pa. Super. 2013). Because 

Appellant’s first five issues were not properly preserved for review, we shall 

not consider them.1 Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). 

____________________________________________

1 After we reinstated Appellant’s appeal, Appellant filed (for the second time) 

a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” Appellant requested, and we denied (for 

the second time) his petition, stating Appellant’s “request[] that the lower 

court be directed to reply to his untimely, unrequested 1925(b) statement and 

seek[ing] permission to amend his new 1925(b) statement . . . is DENIED.” 

Order, 4/18/18, at 1. 
J-S43002-18

- 6 -

In his sixth issue, Appellant asserts trial court error for imposing a 

sentence in the aggravated range for Appellant’s resisting arrest conviction. 

As such, Appellant presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentence. As this Court reiterated in Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 

558 (Pa. Super. 2016):

Preliminarily, we note that “there is no absolute right to appeal 

when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence.” 

Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 886 (Pa. Super. 

2008). An appellant must first satisfy a four-part test to invoke 

this Court’s jurisdiction. We examine

(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see

Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly 

preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and 

modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether 

appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and 

(4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence 

appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing 

Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. [Antwine] Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (citation omitted). 

Id. at 563. Here, Appellant’s appeal was timely filed and his sentencing issue 

was preserved in his post-sentence motion. Therefore, he has satisfied the 

first two parts of the test. However, Appellant has not included a Rule 2119(f) 

statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal. “If the 

Commonwealth objects to the appellant’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(f), the sentencing claim is waived for purposes of review.” 

Commonwealth v. [Tyrice] Griffin, 149 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(citation omitted). Because the Commonwealth objected to Appellant's failure
J-S43002-18

- 7 -

to include a separate Rule 2119(f) statement in his appellate brief, see 

Commonwealth Brief at 13, this issue is waived for our review. Griffin, 149 

A.3d at 353-54.2

In his final issue, Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to represent him at two competency hearings, failing to represent 

him after he was declared incompetent, failing to raise the illegality of the 

underlying burglary sentences for which he was on probation when arrested 

for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, and failing to raise the illegality of 

a sentence modification. This claim, just as Appellant’s first five claims, was 

not preserved for appeal in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, we may 

not consider it. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

Appellant recognizes that claims of ineffectiveness are generally to be 

raised on collateral review. Appellant’s Brief at 24. Without citation to case 

____________________________________________

2 Even if not waived, Appellant’s sentencing issue is devoid of merit. As the 

trial court explained in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court had the benefit of 

a pre-sentence report, evidencing its awareness of relevant information. Trial 

Court Opinion, 8/18/17, at 9 (citing Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 

12, 18 (Pa. Super. 1988)). Further, the trial court noted that Appellant had 

“demonstrated both an inability and unwillingness to conform his behavior to 

the reasonable rules of society;” exhibited a “do whatever he wants to do” 

attitude, making him unusually resistant to treatment; “was openly hostile, 

disrespectful and defiant even when redirected by the court;” “refused to 

cooperate with trial counsel and to participate respectfully at every court 

proceeding;” and used offensive, vulgar language in addressing the trial judge 

and in referring to his probation officer. Id. at 9-10. Consequently, “[f]or the 

protection of the community, and to give Appellant a reasonable amount of 

time to address his addiction and his need for long-term mental health 

treatment,” the court imposed a sentence in the aggravated range. Id. at 10. 
J-S43002-18

- 8 -

law, he suggests that the ineffectiveness here is so “blatant” that it should be 

considered on direct appeal and represents that he “waives his right to PCRA 

review of these issues.” Id. 

In Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013), this 

Court explained:

As the law currently stands, a valid waiver of PCRA review is a 

prerequisite to appellate review of ineffectiveness claims on 

appeal. Because our Supreme Court and this Court en banc have 

instructed that ineffectiveness claims are generally not reviewable 

on direct appeal, before reviewing such a claim on direct appeal, 

it is incumbent upon this Court to determine whether a defendant 

expressly, knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to 

PCRA review.

Id. at 665-66 (citations omitted). Because Appellant’s purported waiver does 

not constitute an express, knowing and voluntary of waiver of his right to 

PCRA review, this Court would not be in a position to review an ineffectiveness 

claim, even if preserved. Appellant is entitled to raise his ineffectiveness 

issues in a PCRA petition, along with any other claims for post-conviction 

relief, if he so chooses and as the law allows. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary
J-S43002-18

- 9 -

Date: 10/22/2018