J-A18002-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT LEE BRIMAGE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1447 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 30, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-02-SA-0000429-2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 14, 2022

Appellant, Robert Lee Brimage, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny on November 

30, 2021, following his summary conviction for violating Section 1501(a) of 

the Vehicle Code (“Code”), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501(a), relating to driving with a 

suspended license. Upon review, we affirm. 

The facts and procedural history of the instant appeal are not disputed. 

Briefly, after a magisterial district judge found Appellant guilty of, inter alia, 

violating Section 1501(a), Appellant filed a summary appeal with the trial 

court. At the de novo hearing held on November 30, 2021, Trooper Codi 

Walker testified that, on August 31, 2019, she initiated a traffic stop of 

Appellant, after noticing that the registration of the vehicle driven by Appellant 

was expired. Upon interacting with Appellant, the trooper further discovered 

that Appellant was driving on a suspended driver license. 
J-A18002-22

- 2 -

Appellant took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he was 

not aware that the registration was expired and that he “told [the trooper that 

his] license was suspended . . . at the time,” N.T., 11/30/21, and that he 

received it back in January, presumably 2021. Id.

At the end of the hearing, the trial court stated that it found Trooper 

Walker’s testimony credible and that there was sufficient evidence to support 

Appellant’s conviction for violating, inter alia, Section 1501(a) of the Code.

This appeal followed. On December 8, 2021, the trial court directed Appellant 

to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal within 

twenty-one days. The trial court cautioned Appellant that failure “to file a 

Rule 1925 (b) Statement will result in a waiver of all appellate claims.” 

Appellant failed to comply. On January 20, 2022, the trial court issued its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion, concluding that Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement resulted in waiver of all issues he wished to raise on appeal. We 

agree. 

It is well established that the failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) 

statement results in the waiver of all claims on appeal. See Commonwealth 

v. Auchmuty, 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that a pro se

appellant’s failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in 

waiver of all issues on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues 

not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). Thus, we decline to 

entertain the merits of this appeal because Appellant has waived all issues. 
J-A18002-22

- 3 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/14/2022