Court Opinion

ID: 9894371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 16:10:34.277733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:25.382533
License: Public Domain

J-S26011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 BRIAN K. RUSH                           :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 29 EDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 17, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
            Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-09-CR-0001253-2015,
            CP-09-CR-0002968-2018, CP-09-CR-0004190-2018

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                      FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2023

      Brian K. Rush pro se appeals from the November 17, 2022 order of the

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (“PCRA county”), which denied

without a hearing his request for collateral relief pursuant to the Post

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-56. Upon review, we

affirm.

      The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed.       As

summarized by the PCRA court:

      On March 8, 2018, on docket number CP-09-CR-1253-2015,
      Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to criminal attempt—
      theft by deception and bad checks. On April 22, 2019, Appellant
      entered negotiated guilty pleas on two separate informations. On
      docket number CP-09-CR-2968-2018, Appellant pled guilty to
      identity theft, forgery, access device fraud, theft by deception,
      and receiving stolen property. On docket number CP-09-CR-
      4190-2018, Appellant pled guilty to bad checks, access device
      fraud, theft by deception, forgery, and identity theft.
J-S26011-23

       On November 19, 2021, Appellant appeared before [the court] for
       a violation hearing after violating his probation on all three
       dockets by incurring criminal convictions on two new cases, one
       of which was for a suboxone drug ring he ran while in the Bucks
       County Correctional Facility (hereinafter “BCCF”).     This was
       Appellant’s first violation on the 2018 dockets and his second
       violation on the 2015 docket. At the hearing, Appellant admitted
       that he was in violation of his probation but contested the
       Commonwealth’s recommended sentence.              After hearing
       testimony, th[e c]ourt sentenced Appellant to no less than
       eighteen (18) to no more than thirty-six (36) months
       incarceration in the state correctional institution (hereinafter
       “SCI”) on both docket number CP-09-CR-1253-2015 and docket
       number CP-09-CR-2968-2018 and to twenty-four (24) months of
       probation on docket number CP-09-CR-4190-2018. [The c]ourt
       directed that these sentences be served consecutively, as well as
       consecutively to the sentence imposed on Appellant’s suboxone
       drug-ring case (docket number CP-09-CR-209-2020).

       On November 29, 2021, Appellant filed a motion for
       reconsideration of sentence. After a hearing on December 17,
       2021, [the c]ourt denied Appellant’s motion. Appellant then
       attempted to file several improper pro se motions that were placed
       in Appellant’s file and forwarded to Appellant’s attorney of record
       pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4). On April 21, 2022, Appellant
       filed a pro se PCRA petition. [The PCRA court] appointed Bonnie-
       Ann Brill Keagy, Esquire to represent Appellant. On September
       12, 2022, Ms. Keagy filed a petition to withdraw as [Appellant’s]
       counsel after reviewing the files and determining that Appellant’s
       pro se PCRA petition did not have legal merit and could not be
       amended to state meritorious claims.[1]

       On September 21, 2022, [the c]ourt issued a notice of intent to
       dismiss without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 and
       granted Ms. Keagy’s motion to withdraw as counsel.          After
       Appellant responded to th[e c]ourt’s notice of intent to dismiss
       without a hearing, [the c]ourt formally denied Appellant’s pro se

____________________________________________

1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -2-
J-S26011-23

       PCRA petition on November 17, 2022. On December 16, 2022,
       Appellant [pro se] filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court.[2]

PCRA Court Opinion, 2/9/23, at 1-3 (unnecessary capitalizations and footnotes

omitted). Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       On appeal,3 Appellant presents two issues for our review.

       [I.] Did the PCRA court err as a matter of law in granting appointed
       counsel’s petition to withdraw as defendant’s counsel?

       [II.] Did the PCRA court err in dismissing the instant PCRA petition
       pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 without convening an evidentiary
       hearing?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       At the outset, upon review of the record, we are constrained to agree

with the PCRA court’s and Commonwealth’s position that Appellant’s issues

____________________________________________

2 Appellant filed a single notice of appeal listing the three docket numbers at

issue sub judice. Ordinarily, the listing of multiple docket entries would run
afoul of the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d
969 (Pa. 2018). However, in Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157
(Pa. Super. 2019), this Court concluded that a breakdown in the courts occurs,
as did here, when a PCRA court advises petitioners that they can pursue
appellate review by filing a single notice of appeal, even though the order
disposes of petitions pending at multiple docket numbers. See also
Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 352-54 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en
banc) (reaffirming Stansbury).         Specifically, the PCRA court advised
Appellant in the November 17, 2022 order that he “has thirty (30) days from
the entry of this Order to file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.”
PCRA Court Order, 11/17/22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, in overlooking
Appellant’s noncompliance with Walker, we find that there was a breakdown
in the courts as per Stansbury and Larkin. We allow this appeal to proceed.
3 “In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s

determination ‘is supported by the record and free of legal error.’”
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 223 (Pa. 2007)).

                                           -3-
J-S26011-23

before us, relating to the PCRA court’s grant of counsel’s withdrawal petition

and denial of relief without a hearing, are waived because he failed to assert

and thereby preserve them in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors

complained of on appeal.     Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, reproduced

verbatim, provides in pertinent part:

      a. The Trail court did not have statutory authority to revoke a
      consecutive order of probation before it began.

      b. Illegal sentence.

      c. Legality of sentence.

      d. Judgement of sentence imposed.

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 2/6/23 (sic). As the PCRA court aptly

reasoned:

      [The court] believes that all of Appellant’s arguments are waived
      due to his failure to file a coherent 1925(b) statement. Rule
      1925(b)(ii) specifically states that “[t]he Statement shall concisely
      identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with
      sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.”
      Further, Appellate courts have held that “Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not
      satisfied by simply filing any statement. Rather, the statement
      must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial court to
      understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.” Tucker
      v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2007). Because
      Appellant has raised a number unspecific, unintelligible, and
      incoherent issues without explanations, this court argues that
      Appellant “ha[s] deliberately circumvented the meaning and
      purpose of Rule 1925(b) and ha[s] thereby effectively precluded
      appellate review of the issues they now seek to raise.” Kanter v.
      Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004).

PCRA Court Opinion, 2/9/23, at 4. Indeed, issues not raised in a court-ordered

1925(b) statement are waived.           Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also

                                      -4-
J-S26011-23

Commonwealth v. Given, 244 A.3d 508, 510 (Pa. Super. 2020) (appellant

waived all issues on appeal by failing to raise them in his Rule 1925(b)

statement); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (Pa. 1998),

superseded by rule on other grounds in Commonwealth v. Burton, 973

A.2d 428, 431 (Pa. Super. 2009). Moreover, an appellant cannot raise an

issue for the first time on appeal.   See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).   Accordingly,

Appellant does not obtain relief.

      Order affirmed.

Date: 11/01/2023

                                    -5-