Com. v. Sotolongo, I.
Com. v. Sotolongo, I. No. 2292 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- In April 2015 Philadelphia police conducted a narcotics sting in an open‑air drug market on East Somerset Street; Sotolongo acted as a lookout and was arrested.
- Following a bench trial Sotolongo was convicted of possession with intent to deliver, conspiracy, and simple possession.
- On June 20, 2016 the court sentenced Sotolongo to 2–4 years’ incarceration followed by 3 years’ probation.
- Sotolongo timely filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement within 21 days of the trial court’s order; he filed a statement six days late.
- The trial court and this Court concluded that the late and vague 1925(b) statement waived all appellate issues, including a claimed sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s appellate issues are preserved despite a late 1925(b) statement | Commonwealth: trial court order required timely 1925(b); failure to comply waives issues | Sotolongo: submitted a 1925(b) statement (albeit late) and challenges sufficiency of the evidence | Court: untimely filing (and vagueness) waived issues; appeal denied |
| Whether the sufficiency claim was preserved given the content of the 1925(b) statement | Commonwealth: statement was untimely and too vague to allow meaningful review | Sotolongo: asserted sufficiency challenge in the filed statement | Court: statement failed to specify elements challenged; thus sufficiency claim waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (timely compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) required; failure waives issues)
- Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to comply with court orders can result in waiver)
- Ray, 134 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (1925(b) statement must specify the elements challenged in sufficiency claims)
- Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not included in concise statement are waived)
- Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (concise statement too vague is the functional equivalent of no statement)