Court Opinion

ID: 9952741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 16:14:42.198568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:05.061905
License: Public Domain

J-A01014-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  IAN BRADLEY CORBIN II                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 848 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 26, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002562-2018

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                        FILED MARCH 20, 2024

       Ian Bradley Corbin appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence,

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, following his

bench trial before the Honorable Samuel P. Murray.1          The court convicted

Corbin of driving under the influence, controlled substance-schedule 1,2

driving while operator’s privilege suspended or revoked,3 and violation of

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Following a colloquy addressing waiver of counsel, Corbin proceeded pro se

at his bench trial. See N.T. Waiver Colloquy, 11/29/21. Further, following
sentencing, the court notified Corbin of his post-sentence rights, which
included the assistance of counsel. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/26/22, at
8-10.
2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(i).

3 Id. at § 1543(a).
J-A01014-24

safety hazard.4 Because Corbin has waived all claims on appeal for failure to

file a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, we affirm.

       On January 26, 2022, the trial court sentenced Corbin to three days to

six months’ imprisonment, suspended his license for one year, and fined him

$1,225.00.     Corbin filed a pro se notice of appeal on February 28, 2022.5

       Nevertheless, Corbin is not entitled to review of the merits of his appeal.

On March 3, 2022, the trial court entered an order directing Corbin to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within

twenty-one (21) days.6 Corbin’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement was due on

March 24, 2022.7        Though dated March 21, 2022, Corbin did not file his
____________________________________________

4 Id. at § 4305(a).

5 Corbin is currently incarcerated in Lehigh County.    Pursuant to the prisoner
mailbox rule, Corbin’s notice of appeal, postmarked February 25, 2022, was
timely filed. See Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (pro se filing submitted by person
incarcerated in correctional facility deemed filed as of date of prison postmark
or date filing was delivered to prison authorities for purposes of mailing as
documented by properly executed prisoner cash slip or other reasonably
verifiable evidence). See also Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa.
1997); Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d
278 (Pa. 1996).

6 As required by Rule 1925(b), the order specified: (1) the number of    days
after the date of the court’s order within which the appellant must file and
serve the statement; (2) that the statement shall be filed of record; (3) that
the statement shall be served upon the judge; and (4) that any issue not
included in the statement shall be deemed waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

7 On March 21, 2022, Corbin filed a motion for extension of time    to file his
Rule 1925(b) statement. Included in the record is an envelope addressed to
the Northampton County Clerk of Courts, postmarked March 17, 2022. Rule
1925(b)(2)(ii) states that a party may request an extension of the deadline to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-A01014-24

statement until March 28, 2022, and Corbin provided no documentation to

demonstrate when he mailed that statement, so as to prove that it was timely

under the prisoner mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Crawford, 17 A.3d

1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2011) (under prisoner mailbox rule, pro se document

deemed filed on date it is placed in hands of prison authorities for mailing.”).

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 131(f).8 “[F]ailure to comply with the minimal requirements

of [Rule] 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the issues raised.”

Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d

222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (emphasis and citation omitted). In

addition, when an appellant proceeds pro se, we recognize no remedy or

exception for failure to timely file a Rule 1295(b) statement.              See

Commonwealth v. Boniella, 158 A.3d 162, 164 (Pa. Super. 2017) (this

Court found waiver of all issues where pro se appellant filed court-ordered

____________________________________________

file the Rule 1925(b) statement until 21 days following the date of entry on
the docket of the transcript in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1922(b), but “[t]he
party must attach the transcript purchase order to the motion for the
extension.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2)(ii). The trial court noted that Corbin’s
motion was not filed in conformance with this rule. We, therefore, agree with
the trial court’s determination that Corbin’s Rule 1925(b) statement was
untimely filed. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/22, at 5-7. We also note that
Corbin’s 33-page statement reads more like a brief than a proper Rule 1925(b)
statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv) (“The Statement should not be
redundant or provide lengthy explanations as to any errors.”).

8 On May 3, 2022, this Court remanded to the trial court for a Grazier hearing.

See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). Following the
hearing, the trial court appointed Corbin’s prior standby counsel as appellate
counsel for Corbin for this appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief on behalf
of Corbin. See Order, 5/19/22.

                                           -3-
J-A01014-24

1925(b) statement one day late even though trial court addressed issues; this

Court’s rationale for remanding “disappears where it is filed by pro se litigant

because pro se litigant cannot be ineffective on his or her own behalf.”). See

also Elliot-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 A.3d 539, 542 (Pa. Super.

2021) (although we are “willing to liberally construe” an appellant’s pro se

filings, an “appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because he

lacks legal training.” (citation and brackets omitted)).

      Here, like in Boniella, “we are constrained to find that [Corbin’s] issues

are waived in the instant matter.”     Boniella, 158 A.3d at 164. See also

Commonwealth v. Ramos, 239 A.3d 100 (Pa. Super. 2020); cf. Pa.R.A.P.

1925(c)(3) (procedure where criminal defendant’s counsel is deemed

ineffective for failing to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement). Accordingly, we

affirm his judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/20/2024

                                     -4-
J-A01014-24

              -5-