J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KEITH L. BURLEY, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 386 WDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 20, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-37-CR-0000235-1999

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KEITH L. BURLEY, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 387 WDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 20, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-37-CR-0000339-1999

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: September 12, 2024

Appellant, Keith L. Burley, Jr., appeals — in two separate cases that we 

sua sponte consolidate herein — from the post-conviction court’s March 20,

2024 orders denying, as untimely, his petitions filed under the Post Conviction 

Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 2 -

The facts of Appellant’s two, underlying cases are not pertinent to our 

disposition of his present appeal. We need only note that, in May of 1999, 

Appellant was charged, at CP-37-CR-0000235-1999, with homicide, robbery, 

and carrying a firearm without a license. He was also charged that same day, 

in CP-37-CR-0000339-1999, with recklessly endangering another person 

(REAP) and firearm offenses. On October 18, 1999, he entered guilty pleas 

in both cases to the offenses of third-degree murder, carrying a firearm 

without a license, and REAP. On November 22, 1999, Appellant was 

sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 to 36 years’ incarceration. He did not 

file a direct appeal.

Over the ensuing two decades, Appellant litigated two unsuccessful 

PCRA petitions. On December 7, 2020, he filed a third, pro se, PCRA petition, 

which underlies his instant appeals. Counsel was appointed, but filed a 

petition to withdraw, which the court granted. On December 7, 2023, the 

court held a hearing, at which Appellant requested permission to submit a pro 

se brief concerning his PCRA petition, which the court granted. Appellant 

thereafter filed a brief. On March 20, 2024, the PCRA court issued an order 

and opinion denying Appellant’s petition as untimely. See PCRA Court 

Opinion, 3/20/24, at 1-10.

Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal in each case. The court 

then ordered him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, and Appellant complied. In his concise statement, 

Appellant raised the following issues, verbatim:
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 3 -

1. The PCRA court erred when it accepted the Finley letters of and 

filed by PCRA counsel McCurdy and Lacich and dismissed 

Appellant Burley’s request for PCRA relief as there were issues 

of arguable merit that could have been raised by PCRA counsel 

in an amended PCRA petition.

2. The PCRA court erred by dismissing the request for relief where 

Appellant was chronically unrepresented and all prior counsel 

(i.e. Leslie Elisco Smith Shaw and Frisk McCurdy and Lacich) 

were ineffective and none amended the petition and the (third) 

petition relates and traces back to the second petition Frisk 

neither amended nor filed notice of appeal.

3. The PCRA court erred by placing all of Burley claims under the 

umbrella of the PCRA where some claims are habeas claims 

and the common law writs still exists.

4. The PCRA court erred by failing to rule on Appellant’s recusal 

motion.

5. The PCRA court erred by issuing orders for PCRA counsel Frisk 

to take action where counsel was deceased and could not act 

on behalf of the Appellant.

6. The PCRA court erred by unlawfully suspending the habeas 

corpus where the Appellant Burley was collaterally attacked by 

District Attorney Joshua D. Lamancusa Aaron Bernstine (State 

Representative) and the House of Representatives of PA 

through and by the Markie’s Law Movement (see Burley V. 

Bernstine et al No. 26 WAP 2023 Pa. Supreme Court).

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 4/22/24, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization 

omitted).

In response to Appellant’s concise statement, on April 30, 2024, the 

PCRA court issued a “Memorandum Order of Court” stating that all Appellant’s 

issues were adequately addressed in its March 20, 2024 opinion accompanying 

its order denying his petition, except for Appellant’s claim that the court failed 

to rule on his motion for recusal. The court then briefly addressed that issue, 
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 4 -

concluding it was waived and/or meritless. See Memorandum Order of Court, 

4/30/23, at 1-2. 

Now, on appeal, Appellant filed two, identical pro se briefs presenting 

the following two issues for our review:

1. Did the PCRA court fail to comply with Pa.R.A[].P. 1925(a)[,] 

which directs the court to provide an opinion as to the issues 

... Appellant will raise, posing an impediment to meaningful and 

effective appellate review, as well as hindering ... Appellant 

from filing a meaningful and effective appellate brief?

2. Does preclusion of meaningful review warrant remand for the 

issuance of a [Rule] 1925(a) opinion outlining the court’s 

reasoning for dismissing Appellant’s petition, especially since 

Appellant asserts he will be prejudiced in its absence?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In the Argument section of his brief, Appellant’s entire, verbatim 

argument is as follows: 

Appellant avers that this Honorable would be unable to dispose of 

pivotal issues in the absence of a 1925(a) opinion. 

Logic demands that the proceedings require a 1925(a) opinion and 

an answer from the district attorney’s office so that factual and 

legal questions can be presented meaningfully.

Please see Commonwealth V. McBride 2008 (Pa. Super 216, 957 

A.2d 752, 758) and Burley V. Bernstine, et al. Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania No. 26 WAP 2023.

Appellant’s Brief at 5. Appellant also includes the following conclusory 

sentence: “Appellant respectfully requests the Court to direct the PCRA court 

to provide an opinion which will allow meaningful and effective Appellate 

review, and to Grant leave for Appellant to supplement this Brief within 90 

days of receipt of the 1925(a) opinion.” Id.
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 5 -

No relief is due. Initially, Appellant’s undeveloped argument does not 

permit this Court to meaningfully review his claims. Appellant does not 

explain what “pivotal issues” he was unable to argue due to the ostensible 

absence of a Rule 1925(a) opinion by the court. 

When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is 

an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently 

developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with 

pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with 

citations to legal authorities. Citations to authorities must 

articulate the principles for which they are cited. 

This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments 

on behalf of an appellant. Moreover, when defects in a brief 

impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we 

may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be 

waived.

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal 

denied, 940 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008) (citations omitted). Based on Appellant’s 

undeveloped argument herein, we deem his issues waived. 

In any event, even if not waived, we would also conclude that 

Appellant’s argument that the court failed to satisfy Rule 1925(a) is meritless. 

As discussed above, after Appellant filed his concise statement, the court 

issued a “Memorandum Order of Court” stating that, aside from Appellant’s 

recusal issue, it was relying on its March 20, 2024 opinion to explain its 

reasons for denying his petition. This satisfies Rule 1925(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) (stating that the court “shall ... file of record at least a brief opinion 

of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, 
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 6 -

or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons 

may be found”) (emphasis added). 

Moreover, Rule 1925(a) only requires the court to author an opinion “if 

the reasons for the order do not already appear of record....” Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) (emphasis added). Again, the court’s reasons for denying Appellant’s 

petition were adequately set forth in its March 20, 2024 opinion, and the court

explicitly pointed to that opinion in its “Memorandum Order of Court” filed in 

response to Appellant’s concise statement. Appellant obviously received the 

court’s March 20, 2024 opinion, as he attached it to his appellate briefs in 

each case. Thus, we fail to see (and Appellant does not explain) why he could 

not utilize the discussion set forth in that opinion to develop the majority of

his arguments on appeal. 

In regard to Appellant’s recusal issue, the PCRA court added a discussion 

of that claim in its “Memorandum Order of Court,” concluding it was waived 

and/or meritless. We recognize that the trial court docket does not show that 

the “Memorandum Order of Court” was served on Appellant (although a 

handwritten notation on that document indicates that it was). Regardless, we 

would decline to remand. Appellant does not even mention, let alone attempt 

to explain, why the court should have recused in this case. His Rule 1925(b) 

statement is also impermissibly vague, stating only that the court “erred by 

failing to rule on Appellant’s recusal motion.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement at 

2. However, as the court noted in its “Memorandum Order of Court,” Appellant 

never pursued a ruling on his recusal request below. For instance, in the brief 
J-S29036-24 & J-S29037-24

- 7 -

that the court permitted Appellant to file following the December 7, 2023

hearing, Appellant never reiterated his claim that the court should recuse. He 

also failed to specify, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, why the court should 

have recused. It is well-settled that, “when an appellant fails to identify in a 

vague [Rule] 1925(b) statement the specific issue he/she wants to raise on 

appeal, the issue is waived, even if the trial court guesses correctly and 

addresses the issue in its [Rule] 1925(a) opinion.” Commonwealth v.

Lemon, 804 A.2d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2002). Thus, because we would 

conclude that Appellant waived his recusal claim, we would not waste time 

and judicial resources by remanding to provide Appellant with the 

“Memorandum Order of Court” in which the court discussed this issue.

Order affirmed.

DATE: 09/12/2024