Court Opinion

ID: 9635634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:57:03.195678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:31.255052
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, P.J.,
Concurring.
¶ 1 I agree with the result reached by the majority. I would not find Appellant’s issues waived and write separately to suggest we re-examine our application of Pa. R.A.P.1925 and Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998).
¶ 2 I would revisit those previous decisions of this court that, applying Lord, have held issues waived even where the trial court has addressed those issues in an opinion. These include those cases where a 1925(b) statement was either not filed or filed after the trial court opinion.
¶ 3 In Lord, Mr. Justice Nigro, in explaining why there can be waiver for failing to list issues in a 1925(b) statement, wrote:
The absence of a trial court opinion poses a substantial impediment to meaningful and effective appellate review. Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues while the parties plan to raise an appeal.
719 A.2d at 308.
¶ 4 There is no functional difference when the issues are addressed in a trial court opinion written in response to a 1925 statement, or when anticipated issues are addressed by the trial court absent such a statement. In either case, the existence of the trial court opinion allows for “meaningful and effective” appellate review.
¶ 5 I believe that sound policy reasons exist not to find waiver. The public is better served when disputes are resolved on their merits rather than by default. In the case of a criminal conviction, many times the application of the waiver doctrine results in a PCRA filing claiming ineffectiveness and as a consequence, resources are expended to resolve a matter that could have been previously addressed.
¶ 6 Given the purpose of Rule 1925, I would find that purpose met when a trial court opinion exists addressing the issue, even if no 1925 statement is filed.