J-S02042-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

IAN MATTHEW PANYKO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2292 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order June 16, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-09-CR-0004425-2005

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and RANSOM*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2018

Appellant, Ian Matthew Panyko, appeals from the order of June 16, 

2017, denying his petition for expungement. We affirm.

In 2005, Appellant was charged with corruption of minors, 

use/possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.1 After 

Appellant completed accelerated rehabilitative disposition (“ARD”), all 

charges were nolle prossed in September 2006. In April 2017, Appellant 

filed a petition for expungement. During the expungement hearing, the 

Commonwealth asserted and Appellant admitted that he had been arrested 

for forgery and other related charges three days prior to signing his ARD 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a) and 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(32) and (31), 

respectively.
J-S02042-18

- 2 -

application for the current action,2 but, in completing the application, he 

failed to disclose the forgery and other related charges.

3

 The trial court 

denied Appellant’s motion for expungement in June 2017.

On July 14, 2017, Appellant timely appealed. On July 20, 2017, the 

trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of the errors 

complained of on appeal within twenty-one days of the entry of the order. 

Appellant filed a document entitled “Defendant’s Response to Order for 

Concise Statement” (“Response”). Instead of a list of errors or abuses of 

discretion that Appellant asserts were made by the trial court, Appellant filed 

a four-page argument, similar to a memorandum of law.

In August 2017, the trial court entered an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), finding that Appellant “has waived all issues” “[d]ue to 

his failure to file an appropriate concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal, as directed by th[e trial c]ourt” and “recommend[ing] that this 

appeal be dismissed.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/17, at 1. The trial court 

stated that a “review of that ‘Response’ indicates that it is neither concise 

nor does it identify with any specificity the alleged errors th[e trial c]ourt 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant later pleaded guilty to these charges. See Docket No. CP-09-CR0007851-2005.

3 The ARD application that Appellant signed stated: “I hereby certify that 

there are no pending prosecutions against me in this or any other state nor 

am I currently on probation or parole for any offense.” Ex. P-1.
J-S02042-18

- 3 -

may have committed in denying [Appellant’s] request for expungement.” 

Id. at 2. The trial court noted:

While suggesting that the Commonwealth has not demonstrated 

an overriding societal interest in preserving [Appellant’s] records

in accordance with the due process considerations announced in 

[Commonwealth v.] Wexler[, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981),] and 

other companion case law such as Commonwealth v. 

Armstrong, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981), [Appellant]’s 

“Response” does not acknowledge or address the underlying 

basis for the Commonwealth’s objection to, and th[e trial c]ourt’s 

denial of, [Appellant’s] petition for expungement.

Id. at 4. The trial court asserted that it “cannot and is not permitted to

guess what issues [Appellant] is appealing, and as a result, [it is] prevented 

from conducting a meaningful review and providing a competent legal 

analysis of those issues,” concluding that “no issues have been preserved for 

meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 3, 5.

The fact that Appellant timely filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement does 

not automatically equate with issue preservation. Our law makes it clear 

that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by simply filing any statement. 

Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 2007). This Court 

explained in Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa. Super. 2001), that Rule 

1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process because it allows the 

trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on 

appeal.

The Rule states: “The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or 

error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify 
J-S02042-18

- 4 -

all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). An appellant’s 

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal must properly specify 

the error or errors to be addressed on appeal. In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. 

Super. 2013). 

“The Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently concise and 

coherent such that the trial court judge may be able to identify the issues to 

be raised on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa. 

Super. 2016) (citations and internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). 

“When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not 

enough for meaningful review.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, the defects in the Response are substantial, and we agree with 

the trial court that Appellant’s Response was not sufficiently concise and 

coherent as to enable the court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues 

he sought to raise, and he has not preserved them for purposes of appeal. 

See Ray, 134 A.3d at 1114; Tucker, 939 A.2d at 346 (“this type of 

extravagant 1925(b) statement makes it all but impossible for the trial court 

to provide a comprehensive analysis of the issues”). Based upon our review 

of the Response, we likewise have difficulty discerning what exact issues 

Appellant was raising.4 The defects in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement 

____________________________________________

4 To the extent that we can surmise Appellant’s issues in his Response at all, 

we would conjecture that he is contending that: (1) the trial court failed to 

“consider” his “completion of the ARD Program”; and (2) he was “deprived of 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S02042-18

- 5 -

are so substantial as to preclude meaningful review. As Appellant does not 

clearly state his challenges, we affirm on the basis that Appellant has waived 

all issues on appeal due to his improper concise statement. See Tucker, 

939 A.2d at 346.

Order affirmed. 

Judge Nichols joins.

Judge Bowes concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date:3/13/18

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

his due process rights, as the Commonwealth did not, pursuant to 

Commonwealth v. Armstrong[, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981),] establish an 

‘overriding societal interest,’ using the Wexler factors, [Commonwealth v.

Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981),] as to why the nolle prossed charges 

should not be expunged.” Response at 3-4.

The statement of the question involved in Appellant’s Brief to this Court 

asks: “Did the trial court err by denying, without a hearing, the Appellant’s 

expungement petition relating to criminal charges which were nolle prossed

following the successful completion of the [ARD] program?” Appellant’s Brief 

at 4.

Assuming Appellant preserved any issues, we would still affirm the trial 

court’s denial of Appellant’s expungement petition, because Appellant made 

a false statement on his ARD application and was convicted of forgery and 

related felony charges while participating in the ARD program.