J-A21031-15

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JAMES HANTON,

Appellant No. 2253 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 17, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008400-2012

BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2015

James Hanton (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the sentence imposed 

after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver crack 

cocaine, 35 P.S. § 78-113(a)(30).1

The trial court explained that after Appellant pled guilty, he was 

“sentenced to 111⁄2 to 23 months incarceration followed by 60 months 

reporting probation, within the standard range of the guidelines for a repeat 

felony offender. [Appellant] was credited with 25 months of time served and 

immediately paroled.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/29/15, at 1 (footnote omitted).

____________________________________________

1 On December 22, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to 

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

Appellant voluntarily waived his right to counsel. 
J-A21031-15

- 2 -

Appellant presents us with a “summary of questions involved”:

1. Was the Appellant entitled to have Motion to Suppress 

Honored/Granted; should case have been dismissed pursuant to 

Pa.R.Crim.Pr. Rule 600; did the court lack subject matter 

jurisdiction over the case/cause of action?

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unnumbered).

Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s questions, we note that on 

December 31, 2014, the trial court ordered Appellant’s compliance with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), “not later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this 

Order. Any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and 

served pursuant to subdivision (b) of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 shall be deemed 

waived.” (Emphasis added). The trial court’s order included proof of service 

to Appellant at the same Tyson Avenue, Philadelphia address which 

Appellant lists on his appellate brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 18 

(unnumbered).

Appellant did not timely file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. On 

January 29, 2015, the trial court issued its opinion in which it found waiver 

due to Appellant’s failure to file a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Appellant has appended to his appellate brief a copy of his Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, time-stamped February 10, 2015. Our review of the 

certified record confirms that Appellant did not timely file his Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, but submitted it approximately two weeks after the trial 

court issued its opinion finding waiver. In his appellate brief, Appellant does 

not address his failure to timely file his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. 
J-A21031-15

- 3 -

In its brief, the Commonwealth is in agreement with the trial court that 

Appellant “waived his appellate rights when he ignored the trial court and 

failed to file a [timely] 1925(b) statement.” Commonwealth Brief at 4. In 

addition, the Commonwealth asserts, “even if [Appellant] had filed the 

1925(b) statement, he would still not be entitled to relief [because] he 

explicitly waived his right to challenge the denial of his post-trial motions 

when he pled guilty, and his challenge to the trial court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction is absurd.” Id.

Upon review, we agree with both the trial court and Commonwealth. 

Our Supreme Court has explained:

Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly 

establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, 

which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) 

statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 

1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the 

authority to countenance deviations from the Rule's terms; the 

Rule's provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or 

selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are 

responsible for complying with the Rule's requirements[.]

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). We note this is 

not a case like Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 

2003), where an untimely filed concise statement of matters complained of 

on appeal was addressed by the trial court in its opinion, such that the 

issues were preserved for appellate review because the purpose of the 

appellate rule requiring such statement was served. Rather, we adhere to 

J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa. Super. 2010), where this Court reiterated 
J-A21031-15

- 4 -

that an appellant’s failure to comply with an order to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement within 21 days constitutes waiver of all objections to the order, 

ruling, or other matter complained of on appeal. Id. at 908, citing

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) and Commonwealth v. 

Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005). 

Given the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case stricken from the argument list. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2015