Court Opinion

ID: 9734005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:22:30.623479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.986600
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, President Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority’s analysis and disposition of issues one through six. With respect to the final two issues, appellant’s sentencing claims, I disagree only with the majority’s statement that Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) is a procedural rather than a jurisdictional requirement.
In Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 513 Pa. 508, 522 A.2d 17 (1987), the supreme court made it clear that strict compliance with Rule 2119(f) is necessary for an appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the superior court. Id., 513 Pa. at 512, 522 A.2d at 19. Being a jurisdictional requirement, a violation of Rule 2119(f) is not waived by the failure of the opposing party to object to the violation. Rohr v. Keystone *398Insurance Co., 244 Pa.Super. 179, 181, 439 A.2d 809, 810 (1982).
Applying the supreme court’s mandate of Tuladziecki to the case herein, the appellant’s non-compliance with Rule 2119(f) creates a lack of jurisdiction regardless of the appellee’s failure to object to the non-compliance. Lacking jurisdiction, this court has no authority to examine appellant’s claim to determine if he presented a substantial question warranting our consideration of his sentencing claims.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I would find appellant’s sentencing claims waived.