J-S29012-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

PAUL LEN SCHAFFER 

 Appellant No. 1160 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order April 25, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-33-CR-0000569-2000 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

*

 

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 10, 2015

 Appellant, Paul Len Schaffer, appeals pro se from the order entered 

April 25, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, which 

denied his Motion for Discovery of DNA-Related Biological Evidence. We 

affirm. We also summarily deny his Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Complaint 

Based on Failure to Timely Indict filed in this Court, as it is patently 

frivolous. 

 As we write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the 

history of this appeal, we provide only so much of the facts and protracted 

procedural history as is necessary to our analysis. Schaffer is serving an 

aggregate sentence of 26-52 years’ imprisonment, imposed following his 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S29012-15 

- 2 - 

conviction for rape, statutory sexual assault, and related charges. He was 

sentenced on June 5, 2002, at which time he was also determined to be a 

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). On appeal, this Court affirmed Schaffer’s 

judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court subsequently denied his 

petition for allowance of appeal on August 31, 2006. Commonwealth v. 

P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 906 A.2d 542 (Pa. 

2006). Schaffer later unsuccessfully sought both PCRA1 relief and review in 

the federal courts. 

 Of relevance to the instant appeal, on April 25, 2014, Schaffer filed a 

Motion for Discovery of DNA-Related Biological Evidence. The trial court 

summarily denied Schaffer’s motion that same day, and Schaffer filed a 

timely appeal. On August 22, 2014, the trial court entered an order 

directing Schaffer to file a Pa.R.A.P. Rule 1925(b) concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. Thereafter, on December 

17, 2014, the trial court entered an order noting that as Schaffer had 

declined to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, no further response on its part 

was warranted. 

 Schaffer now raises eight issues for our review—only one of which 

purports to address the order underlying the instant appeal. We note, 

however, that Schaffer’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement results in 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq. 
J-S29012-15 

- 3 - 

the waiver of the issues now raised on appeal. “Issues not included in the 

Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). As Schaffer did 

not file a Rule 1925(b) statement preserving the issues now raised in his 

appellate brief, we are constrained to find these claims waived on appeal.2 

See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) 

(reaffirming bright-line rule of Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 

1998), requiring appellants to comply with trial court order for Rule 1925(b) 

statement). 

We recently reiterated the “automatic nature” of the waiver of issues 

for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and that “we are required to address 

the issue once it comes to our attention.” Greater Erie Indus. 

Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (en banc). In Presque Isle Downs, the en banc panel 

examined Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases construing Rule 1925(b) and 

noted that “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than 

stringent application of waiver pursuant” to that rule. Id. (citation omitted). 

 Order affirmed. Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Complaint Based on 

Failure to Timely Indict is denied. 

____________________________________________ 

2

 As Schaffer filed the instant appeal pro se, he does not benefit from the 

automatic remand provided in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) when counsel fails to file 

a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. 
J-S29012-15 

- 4 - 

 Judge Strassburger joins the memorandum. 

 Judge Mundy concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/10/2015