Court Opinion

ID: 9942607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 16:14:29.09533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:18.103481
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Brian D. Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, :
Paul Linkmeyer, Dustin Kasper, and    :
and Jaclyn Kasper,                    :
                   Appellants         :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Chester County and Chester County     :      No. 1522 C.D. 2023
Board of Elections                    :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM                                           FILED: February 21, 2024

             Brian D. Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, Paul Linkmeyer, Dustin
Kasper, and Jaclyn Kasper (collectively, Appellants) appeal pro se from the Chester
County (County) Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) December 8, 2023 order
sustaining the County’s and the County Board of Elections’ (collectively, Appellees)
preliminary objections (Preliminary Objections) to Appellants’ Petition to Open
Ballot Box and Recanvass Voting Machines (Petition), and dismissing the Petition.
After review, this Court affirms.
             On November 15, 2023, Appellants filed the Petition in the trial court.
On November 29, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion for Consolidation and their
Preliminary Objections. On December 1, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion for
Expedited Consideration of Appellees’ Motion for Consolidation and Preliminary
Objections (Motion to Expedite). By December 4, 2023 order, the trial court granted
the Motion to Expedite. On December 8, 2023, the trial court denied the Motion for
Consolidation, sustained the Preliminary Objections, and dismissed the Petition. On
December 13, 2023, Appellants appealed from the trial court’s order.
               On December 18, 2023, the trial court directed Appellants to file of
record and serve on the trial court judge a Concise Statement of Errors Complained
of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b)
(Rule 1925(b) Statement). On January 17, 2024, the trial court issued its opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a), wherein it stated, in pertinent part:

               On December 18, 2023, [the trial court] directed
               [Appellants] to file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement] within [21]
               days. The [Rule 1925(b) Statement] was due January 8,
               202[4].[1] On January 12, 202[4], [Appellants] delivered a
               [Rule 1925(b) Statement] to my chambers; however, the
               [Rule 1925(b) Statement] has not been filed of record.
               Pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b), all issues on appeal are waived
               upon failure to timely file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement]. J.P.
               v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904, 908 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to
               timely file court[-]ordered Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement
               results in waiver of all issues on appeal); Greater Erie
               Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d
               222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Rule 1925 is a bright[-]line
               rule and failure to comply with the minimal requirements
               results in automatic waiver of issues raised). Accordingly,
               [Appellants] have failed to preserve any issues for review.

Original Record (O.R.) at 189-190.2
               By January 24, 2024 Order, this Court directed the parties to “address
in their principal briefs on the merits whether Appellants preserved any issues on
appeal considering their apparent failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement as directed
by the trial court.” Id. On February 1, 2024, Appellees filed their brief. Also, on
February      1,    2024,      Appellants       filed    “APPELLANTS[’]          RESPONSE        TO

       1
          This Court acknowledges that because, according to the trial court’s docket entries, the
trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order was not mailed until December 19, 2024, the due date for filing
and service was January 9, 2024. See generally Rule 108(a)(1) (“[T]he day of entry shall be the
day the clerk of the court or the office of the government unit mails or delivers copies of the order
to the parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1)).
        2
          Because the Original Record pages are not numbered, the page numbers referenced herein
reflect electronic pagination.
                                                 2
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PER CURIAM ORDER PURSUANT TO

[RULE] 1925” (Response). Therein, Appellants stated, in relevant part:

                 3. Appellants had previously experienced multiple
                 problems accessing the [trial court’s] electronic docket
                 and resolved these issues and had full access to upload and
                 submit filings with the [trial c]ourt.
                 4. Appellants completed their response to [the trial
                 court’s] Rule 1925 order on Friday, January 5th, 2024,
                 eighteen (18) days after [the trial court’s] order, but upon
                 attempting to file electronically, found that they no longer
                 had access to the docket or cases (see Ex[.] C email to []
                 County Prothonotary).[3]
                 5. Appellants mailed their response(s) to [the trial judge]
                 to the address as ordered via [United States Postal Service
                 (]USPS[)] Priority Overnight mail on Sunday, January
                 7th, 2024, twenty (20) days from [the trial court’s] order
                 (see Ex[.] D USPS [r]eceipt and photograph of response
                 and USPS mailer with paid postage attached).[4]
                 6. Appellants also emailed their response(s), with copies
                 of the USPS receipts, to Appellees’ counsel, as also
                 directed by [the trial court’s] Rule 1925 order, at 01:24
                 a[.]m[.], on January 8th, 2024, 21 days from [the trial
                 court’s] order (see Ex[.] E email).

       3
           The email stated, in relevant part:
                 [Gregory Stenstrom] was unable to e[-]file this weekend and last
                 night because I cannot access [four] of the [six] recount cases as a
                 party (Pro Se Plaintiff) and have no other option than to come to
                 the Court and your office to file by hand - again. I would
                 appreciate your continued patience, and more so, a reason why I
                 cannot currently respond to, or initiate a new filing in the subject
                 cases so I can, in fact, file electronically via e[-]file to enter our Rule
                 1925 responses into their respective dockets. If you can correct this
                 issue, it would be very helpful.
Response Ex. C (emphasis added).
       4
         Although Appellants state that the delivery was overnight, the attachments show
otherwise. The USPS receipt expressly provides: “Expected Delivery Date Wed[.] 1/10/2024[,]”
and the mailer indicates: “EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 1/10/[20]24[.]” Response Ex. D.
                                                     3
              7. The USPS package with Appellants’ response was
              picked up on January 11th, 2024 (see Ex[.] F USPS
              tracking receipt). The paid postage stamp clearly showed
              that the package was timely mailed on January 7th, 2024,
              as depicted in Ex[s.] D, E, F, and below[.]

Response at 2. On February 2, 2024, Appellants filed their brief. Appellants did not
address the issue of whether Appellants preserved any issues on appeal considering
their apparent failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement, as this Court directed.5 Given
Appellants’ pro se status, this Court will treat the relevant portions of Appellants’
Response as if they were incorporated into their brief.
              Initially, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared in Commonwealth
v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998): “[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate
review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a [Rule
1925(b) Statement]. Any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) [S]tatement will be
deemed waived.” Id. at 309. Our Supreme Court reaffirmed in Commonwealth v.
Butler, 812 A.2d 631 (Pa. 2002): “[A]ny issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b)
[S]tatement are waived.” Id. at 634. Finally, in Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888
A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court explained:

              [T]he Lord/Butler rule remains necessary to [e]nsure trial
              judges in each appealed case [have] the opportunity to
              opine upon the issues which the appellant intends to raise,
              and thus provide appellate courts with records amen[]able
              to meaningful appellate review. See Lord, 719 A.2d at
              308. This firm rule avoids the situation that existed prior
              to Lord where trial courts were forced to anticipate which
              issues the appellant might raise and appellate courts had to
              determine “whether they could conduct a ‘meaningful

       5
         Specifically, in their “Statement of Questions Presented,” Appellants included: “Did
Appellants comply with [the trial court’s] Rule 1925 [o]rder? Suggested answer: YES.”
Appellants’ Br. at 5, ¶23. However, the only mention of the Rule 1925(b) order was in their
“Summary of Argument,” wherein they state: “Pro Se Appellants timely complied with [the trial
court’s] Rule 1925 [o]rder, and do not waive any rights to appeal on all germane aspects.”
Appellants’ Br. at 6, ¶26.
                                             4
             review’ despite an appellant’s failure to file a [Rule]
             1925(b) [S]tatement or to include certain issues within a
             filed statement.” Butler, 812 A.2d at 633. Moreover, the
             system provides litigants with clear rules regarding what
             is necessary for compliance and certainty of result for
             failure to comply.

Castillo, 888 A.2d at 779-80; see also Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771
(Pa. 2005) (companion case to Castillo).
             The Castillo Court expounded:

             [W]e specifically voice our disapproval of prior decisions
             of the intermediate courts to the extent that they have
             created exceptions to Lord and have addressed issues that
             should have been deemed waived. See, e.g.,
             Commonwealth v. Alsop, 799 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 2002)
             (declining to waive issues raised in [an] untimely [Rule]
             1925(b) [S]tatement based on finding of no impediment to
             appellate review given trial court’s discussion of issues);
             Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 745 A.2d 662 (Pa. Super. 2000)
             (same).

Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780; see also Schofield.
             “[I]n determining whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal
based on non-compliance with [Rule] 1925[(b)], it is the trial court’s order that
triggers an appellant’s obligation under the rule, and, therefore, we look first to the
language of that order.” Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 6 A.3d 1002, 1007-
08 (Pa. 2010) (plurality). In Berg, one of the issues before the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court was “[w]hether the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court erred in finding waiver of
all appellate issues for failing to serve the trial judge with a [Rule 1925(b)
Statement], when the trial judge’s order directing a [Rule 1925(b) Statement] to be
filed, failed to include language mandated by paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (iv) of []
Rule 1925(b)[.]” Berg, 6 A.3d at 1005.

                                           5
             The Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:

             [T]he trial court’s order instructed [the a]ppellants to ‘file
             with the [c]ourt, and a copy with the trial judge, a [Rule
             1925(b) Statement] within twenty-one (21) days of the
             issuance of this order.’ Order, 1/3/[20]08 (emphasis
             added). Despite any suggestion to the contrary, the
             express language of [its] order did not instruct [the
             a]ppellants to serve a copy of their [Rule] 1925(b)
             Statement on the trial judge; rather, it directed [the
             a]ppellants to file copies of their [Rule] 1925(b) Statement
             with the court and with the trial judge. Although the
             instruction to file a document with a trial judge is an
             oddity, we conclude [the a]ppellants substantially
             complied with this directive by presenting a copy to the
             prothonotary of Berks County.

Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008. The Berg Court’s holding was limited to its facts, as explained
therein:

             [The Berg Court] hold[s] that the issues raised in [the
             a]ppellants’ [Rule] 1925(b) Statement were not waived,
             despite the fact that the [Rule 1925(b) S]tatement was not
             personally served on the trial judge, where personal
             service was attempted by counsel and thwarted by the
             prothonotary, and where the [trial] court’s Rule
             1925([b]) order specified ‘filing’ and not ‘service.’

Berg, 6 A.3d at 1012 (emphasis added).
             Here, the trial court’s order specified:

             [P]ursuant to [Rule] 1925(b)(1), Appellants are
             ORDERED to file of record and serve a [Rule 1925(b)
             Statement] no later than twenty-one (21) days after
             entry of this [o]rder.
             The [Rule 1925(b)] Statement must be served on the
             undersigned [p]ursuant to [Rule] 1925(b)(1) in person or
             by mail directed to Chester County Justice Center, 201
             West Market Street, Suite 6218, West Chester,
             Pennsylvania, 19380.

                                           6
            Service on all counsel of record and unrepresented parties
            shall be made concurrent with filing by any means of
            service specified under [Rule] 121(c).
            Any issue not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)]
            Statement timely filed and served pursuant to [Rule]
            1925(b) shall be waived.
O.R. at 185 (emphasis added).
            Rule 1925(b) expressly provides, in relevant part:
            Direction to File Statement of Errors Complained of on
            Appeal; Instructions to the Appellant and the Trial
            Court. If the judge entering the order giving rise to the
            notice of appeal ([]judge[]) desires clarification of the
            errors complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an
            order directing the appellant to file of record in the trial
            court and serve on the judge a concise statement of the
            errors complained of on appeal ([Rule 1925(b)]
            Statement[]).
            (1) Filing and Service. The appellant shall file of record
            the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement and concurrently shall
            serve the judge. Filing of record shall be as provided in
            [Rule] 121(a) and, if mail is used, shall be complete on
            mailing if the appellant obtains a [USPS] Form 3817
            Certificate of Mailing, Form 3800 Receipt for Certified
            Mail, Form 3806 Receipt for Registered Mail, or other
            similar [USPS] form from which the date of deposit can
            be verified in compliance with the requirements set forth
            in [Rule] 1112(c). Service on the judge shall be at the
            location specified in the order, and shall be either in
            person, by mail, or by any other means specified in the
            order. Service on the parties shall be concurrent with
            filing and shall be by any means of service specified under
            [Rule] 121(c).
            (2) Time for filing and service.
            (i) The judge shall allow the appellant at least 21 days from
            the date of the order’s entry on the docket for the filing and
            service of the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement. Upon application
            of the appellant and for good cause shown, the judge may
            enlarge the time period initially specified or permit an

                                          7
            amended or supplemental [Rule 1925(b)] Statement to be
            filed. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, delay in
            the production of a transcript necessary to develop the
            [Rule 1925(b)] Statement[,] so long as the delay is not
            attributable to a lack of diligence in ordering or paying for
            such transcript by the party or counsel on appeal. In
            extraordinary circumstances, the judge may allow for the
            filing of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement or amended or
            supplemental [Rule 1925(b)] Statement nunc pro tunc.
            ....
            (3) Contents of order. The judge’s order directing the
            filing and service of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall
            specify:
            (i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’s
            order within which the appellant must file and serve the
            [Rule 1925(b)] Statement;
            (ii) that the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall be filed of
            record;
            (iii) that the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall be served on
            the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place
            the appellant can serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement in
            person and the address to which the appellant can mail the
            [Rule 1925(b)] Statement. In addition, the judge may
            provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for
            the appellant to serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement on the
            judge; and
            (iv) that any issue not properly included in the [Rule
            1925(b)] Statement timely filed and served pursuant to
            subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.
            (vii) Issues not included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement
            and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
            paragraph (b)(4) are waived.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (text emphasis added).

            In the instant matter, the trial court’s order clearly specified that
“Appellants are ORDERED to file of record and serve a [Rule 1925(b) Statement]

                                         8
no later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this [o]rder” and that “[a]ny issue
not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement timely filed and served
pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b) shall be waived.” O.R. at 185. Rule 1925(b) is
mandatory. “Pursuant to [Rule 1925(b)], an appellant must comply whenever the
trial court orders the filing of a [Rule] 1925(b) [S]tatement in order to preserve a
claim for appellate review. . . . Lord . . . .” Egan v. Stroudsburg Sch. Dist., 928 A.2d
400, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Greco v. City of Wilkes-
Barre (Pa. Cmwlth No. 1425 C.D. 2019, filed Mar. 2, 2021), slip op. at 12 (“Greco’s
failure to file its Rule 1925(b) Statement with the trial court prothonotary as directed
requires this Court to conclude that the issues raised in Greco’s Rule 1925(b)
Statement were waived.”); Sampson v. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication (Pa. Cmwlth.
No. 1296 C.D. 2019, filed Dec. 8, 2020).6

              This holding comports with [the Pennsylvania Supreme]
              Court’s view on pro se litigants.           See Vann v.
              Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], . . . 494 A.2d
              1081, 1086 ([Pa.] 1985) (pro se litigant must to some
              extent assume the risk that his lack of legal training will
              prove his undoing); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, . . . 555
              A.2d 846, 852 ([Pa.] 1989) (pro se litigant ‘is subject to
              same rules of procedure as is a counseled defendant; he
              has no greater right to be heard than he would have if he
              were represented by an attorney’); [s]ee also[] Jones v.
              Rudenstein, . . . 585 A.2d 520, 522 [(Pa. Super. 1991)] . . .
              (pro se litigant not absolved of complying with procedural
              rules and courts have no affirmative duty to walk pro se
              litigant through the rules).

Peters Creek Sanitary Auth. v. Welch, 681 A.2d 167, 170 n.5 (Pa. 1996) (italics
omitted); Sampson, slip op. at 6. Consequently, Appellants’ failure to file their Rule

       6
         Unreported decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their
persuasive value, but not as binding precedent. See Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s
Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).

                                               9
1925(b) Statement with the trial court prothonotary as the trial court directed requires
this Court to conclude that the issues raised in Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) Statement
are waived.
              For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                           10
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Brian D. Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, :
Paul Linkmeyer, Dustin Kasper, and    :
and Jaclyn Kasper,                    :
                   Appellants         :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Chester County and Chester County     :   No. 1522 C.D. 2023
Board of Elections                    :

PER CURIAM
                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2024, the Chester County
Common Pleas Court’s December 8, 2023 order is affirmed.