J-S69025-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

PAUL LEN SCHAFFER

Appellant No. 572 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order March 10, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County

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

BEFORE: BOWES, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2017

Appellant, Paul Len Schaffer, appeals the March 10, 2017 denial of his 

improperly filed “motion to modify and reduce sentence.” We affirm.

A previous panel of this Court summarized the extensive history of this 

case as follows:

[Appellant] is serving an aggregate sentence of 26-52 years’ 

imprisonment, imposed following his 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 [relief pursuant to the Post 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S69025-17

- 2 -

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9545] and 

review in the federal courts. 

See Commonwealth v. Schaffer, 125 A.3d 446, *1 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(unpublished memorandum).

The instant appeal concerns the denial of a motion Appellant filed on 

February, 21, 2017, seeking to modify and reduce his sentence. See Mot. to 

Modify and Reduce Sentence, 2/21/17, at ¶¶ 1-7. In this motion, Appellant 

purported to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence, claiming 

the court did not consider the appropriate sentencing guidelines and that his 

sentence was unreasonable and excessive. Id. The court denied 

Appellant’s motion, as it no longer had the jurisdiction to consider 

Appellant’s claim.

Appellant timely appealed. On April 12, 2017, the court ordered 

Appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal within 

twenty-one days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court has 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3), and the docket reflects that written 

notice was provided to Appellant pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 114. To date, 

Appellant has not filed his statement. 

Where a trial court orders an Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement, the Appellant must comply in a timely manner. Commonwealth 

v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). Failure to comply with a Rule 

1925(b) order will result in waiver of all issues raised on appeal. Id.; see 

also Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, 

Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) 
J-S69025-17

- 3 -

(“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with 

the provision of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). Further, it is the 

language of the trial court’s order that triggers an appellant’s obligation. 

See In re Estate of Boyle, 7 A.3d 674, 676 (Pa. Super. 2013). Essentially, 

the court must advise and appellant that 1) he/she has twenty-one days

from the date of entry of the 1925(b) order to file the statement; 2) the 

statement should be filed of record; 3) the statement should be served on 

the trial judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1); and 4) any issue not included 

in the statement timely filed and served will be deemed waived. Greater 

Erie Indus. Development Corp., 88 A.3d at 225.

The record reflects that the trial court issued an order requiring 

Appellant to submit a Rule 1925(b) statement, that Appellant was served 

with this order, and that Appellant failed to file such a statement within 

twenty-one days of the date of that order. The order conformed with the 

requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(i)-(iv). See Greater Erie Indus. 

Development Corp., 88 A.3d at 225-26. Thus, due to Appellant’s failure to 

submit a Rule 1925(b) statement, we conclude that any issues he wished to 

raise have been waived.1

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

1 We note, separately, that Appellant’s petition was not proper. Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence became final on November 29, 2006; this petition, 

filed in February 2017, is long past the time the court would have 

jurisdiction to modify its sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. 
J-S69025-17

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/12/2017