Court Opinion

ID: 9701434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:19:34.037316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:23.729763
License: Public Domain

*620Justice NEWMAN
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that for an “appellant to be subject to waiver for failing to file a timely 1925(b) statement, the trial court must first issue a • 1925(b) order directing him to do so.” I further agree that in this case, it was far from clear whether the order was ever served.
However, I write separately because the majority takes what I believe is the unnecessary and inappropriate step of making the factual finding that “Appellant did not receive the trial court’s 1925(b) order.” Generally, fact-finding is the role of the trial court. Here, the Superior Court should have remanded to the trial court the issue of whether the 1925(b) order was served because Appellant presented a prima facia case that he was not served with the 1925(b) order. Superior Court did not remand; it quashed the appeal. This was error. The proper course now is not to find facts, as the majority does. Instead, we should remand this case to the trial court for it to determine whether the 1925(b) order was served. If the trial court determines that the order was not served, Appellant’s appellate rights should be reinstated and the trial court should then serve a new order, to which Appellant should respond.