*1 cerned timeliness of the filing of the statement. To do otherwise undermines the integrity of this court confi- dence in the appellate process.”). dissent, I
Accordingly, respectfully as would remand to merits review. 888A.2d 775 Pennsylvania, Appellant COMMONWEALTH of CASTILLO, Appellee. Hector Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued April 2005.
Decided Dec. *2 Burns, Gordon, H. Phila- Hugh Eisenberg, Arnold Ronald J. Fetterman, E. for Com. delphia, Jason Rudenstein, David for Hector Castillo. Scott Peter for Defender Rosalsky, Philadelphia, Association Philadelphia. CAPPY, NIGRO, NEWMAN, C.J., CASTILLE,
Before: SAYLOR, BAER, EAKIN JJ. and
OPINION BAER. Justice case, granted
We review оf this consolidated it our 4, Schofield, v. 580 Pa. review of Commonwealth (2004), parties following and directed the to address the issue: in
Should this Court reconsider
decisions Commonwealth
(1998),
415,
A.2d
v.
553 Pa.
and Common-
Butler,
wealth
571 Pa.
We now Court, which addressed an issue raised reversing in an statement. untimely defendant, Castillo, bar, In Hector the case and related aggravated five counts of assault charged with he his co-defen- resulting crimes from an incident on a street fifty public Philadelphia, dants fired over shots In men- wounding people. January prosecutor two that evidence opening present tioned statements she would the case Alter counsel for drug-turf involved wars. the ad- successfully prevented Castillo and his co-defendants evidence, mission of the counsel for one of the co- relevant suggested closing argument prosecu- defendants regarding drug-turf unsupported tor’s statement wars was against smear tactic the co-defendants. statement, asked response, prosecutor, closing her *3 jury objected
the to remember that the defense had numerous times to her to introduce such attempts Despite evidence. counsel, objection from defense court allowed the to The prosecutor pursue argument. prosecutor then to ask the attempted jury prevented consider she was counsel, by introducing law from relevant Defense evidence. however, objected the prosecutor completed before the rhetor- ical question.2 objection The trial court sustained the (a) receipt Upon appeal judge General rule. notice who from, appealed entered the order if the reasons for the order do not record, already appear of shall forthwith file of record at least a brief statement, order, opinion, in the form of an the reasons for the of, rulings complained specify for the or other matters or shall in
writing place may in the record where such reasons be found. (b) complained Direction to file The matters of. lower may directing appellant court forthwith enter an order to file of judge in record the lower court and serve on the trial a concise complained statement of the matters of on no later than 14 days entry comply after of such order. A failure to with such direction be considered court as a waiver of all order, objections ruling complained to the or other of. matter asked, Specifically, prosecutor you I "And so ask take into maybe things permitted not consideration there were some by law ...” in not to continue that vein. Follow- prosecutor instructed the sponte the court issued sua curative ing closing arguments, and, if defense dismissing jury, after asked instruction Counsel indicat- adequate. counsel considered the instruction Castil- jury the instruction. The convicted ed satisfaction with him in and the court sentenced June 1999. charges, lo on all motions nor post-trial appealed neither filed within Castillo However, in December requisite periods. time to the Post Relief petition pursuant filed a Conviction Castillo 9541-46, Act, ap- §§ reinstatement of his seeking 42 Pa.C.S. After the trial court reinstated pro nunc tunc. pellate rights counsel, rights July appointed 2002 and new his and the trial appeal August filed a notice of Castillo 10, 2002, a Pa. court, ordered Castillo to file September Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)’s R.A.P.1925(b) statement. violation four- that an file his statement within requirement appellant order, of the trial court’s directive days entry teen after 1, 20023 to file waited until on or about November Castillo untimely then an statement. what was Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, Castillo includ untimely In his misconduct only alleging prosecutorial relating ed the issue his exchange prosecutor, the above-desсribed between counsel, Superior then filed a brief in and the court. Castillo Court, for the first time issues of trial court error and raising to the raised previously counsel ineffectiveness addition Court, in misconduct. The prosecutorial issue decision, memorandum refused to consider unpublished Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) state raised specifically ment, prosecutorial did address the misconduct but Citing statement. untimely raised in the *4 (ad Alsop, (Pa.Super.2002) v. Commonwealth of Pa.R.A.P. despite issues raised untimeliness dressing 1925(b) statement, trial сourt addressed the issues Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) Ortiz, and Commonwealth opinion) (same), the court held that it could (Pa.Super.2000) A.2d 662 submission, untimely raised despite address the claims day the date of October 2002. The one 3. The trial court referenced analysis. discrepancy inquiry and this is irrelevant to our court The because the trial had addressed the issue. court then to a as a found that Castillo was entitled result new prosecutorial of misconduct.4
The filed a for petition Commonwealth allowance chаllenging Superior Court’s decision to hear Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, despite untimely as well as the court’s of the issue. As underlying resolution substantive mentioned, review, previously granting we entered order consolidating parties this case with and Schofield, ordering question concerning brief the above-stated reconsideration of the rule. Lord/Butler
The urges this Court to the Superi- reverse or Court and reaffirm the forth in rule set Lord and Butler. Lord, The bright-line Commonwealth asserts that rule just which we reestablished Butler three years ago, pro- for certainty vides of result consistency consequences Pa.R.A.P.1925(b). contrast, for failure comply Commonwealth maintains that to our in Lord prior decision Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)’s litigants predict could not when waiver provision for non-compliance The Common- apply. would that appellate wealth asserts applied provi- courts waiver with, sion inconsistently example, waiving some courts in those only meaningful cases where appellate review impossible, the issues was other while courts overlooked based on non-compliance equities of the issue.
The Commonwealth further contends that after even this Lord, bright-line Court established the rule in the intermedi- ate appellate courts continued to exercise discretion apply- Ortiz, ing in cases such as Alsop upon by relied bar, in the Superior Court case at relating untimely Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) statements. The Commonwealth observes that discretion, continued following this exercise this Court bright-line reasserted the rule in Butler by stating that “waiv- er under Rule is automatic.” A.2d 4. We will discuss the court’s rationale for reversal on based prosecutorial misconduct issue as the merits of the issue are irrelevant decision to this Court’s reverse the based waiver issue under rule of Lord and Butler. *5 vitality bright- of the in favor of continued arguing rule, that the observes
line Commonwealth Lord/Butler Pa.R.A.P.1925(b), of is to purpose rule effectuates which by a trial court providing opportunity aid only those that the upon appellant to foсus opinion conse- guarantees predictable to plans appeal, raise to rule. comply Additionally, for failure with the quences Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)’s of simplicity offers that Commonwealth a minor burden on the imposes only appellant, requirements from the trial court an exten- proactively also seek who if ability to file or the to amend sion time requests that this Court thereby needed. The Commonwealth that and conclude Castillo waived reverse the it in a by failing raise prosecutоrial misconduct Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) timely filed statement. an amicus Philadelphia
The Defenders Association filed Schofield, case and in which brief this Castillo, file his own joined by responsive who did not that harsh sanc- argues brief. The Defenders Association reserved for situations only tion of should be where waiver ap- completely prevents non-compliance It that be inappropriate asserts waiver would pellate review. court issue raised in the non- the trial addressed the where in its or in the compliant opinion statement either elsewhere Moreover, that could suggests record. the Association cases even exist would not be appropriate where waiver in the record. apparent anywhere trial court’s reasons are not might be appropriate, Even those situations where waiver remand the Association recommends courts issue, request that the trial court address the otherwise Pa.R.A.P. possibly by requiring appellants supplemental file claims more The Association this statements. the harsh impose penalties lenient would procedure client, due counsel’s on the when fault is waiver failings.5 mandatory suggests creation
5. The also Defenders Association hearings compliance level to with Pa.R.A.P. at the court ensure 1925(b). justification already respectfully burdening the We see no however, Association, provide fails The Defenders application caused inconsistent problems for the solution and Butler. to Lord system prior plagued discretion which rule, the Association for relaxation arguing Even *6 in its expo- results the for inconsistent potential demonstrates it sug- non-compliance, where permutations sition might justify waiver non-compliance certain kinds of gests the not, fact-specific on a determina- depending and others should In the Associa- doing, of the record. so sufficiency tion of the provide rule to the need for a tion reinforces The bench and clarity certainty. and courts with litigаnts ponder rule are not left to whether the bar under Lord/Butler glean court to appellate allows sufficiently the record Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) rationale, either from a filed trial court’s Moreover, are not in the record. Courts or elsewhere opinion of the trial court’s explication ascertain an forced to whether To other- review. hold unnecessary appellate rationale is results the clock to a time of inconsistent is to turn back wise justice. and uneven vein, that some suggests the Association the same while the trial court
degree of untimeliness does hinder the trial obtains the Pa.R.A.P. court when court appellate opinion, question its prior drafting Allowing as to is too for discretion long long. remains how result in inconsistencies. For exam- regarding timeliness will Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) timely faced the lack of a ple, when statement, might efficiently trial file an quickly one court issues, waiving might all while another address opinion raise, another it will and still appellant believes If filing аn until a statement is received. might delay opinion eventually in each case files an appellant hypothetical statement, court the first equally untimely appellate waived, trial court case the issues that the while would waive scenarios, in the second two under current long the issues so appellate court could address precedent, opinion. the trial the same issues in its As as court addressed busy supervising It is incumbent trial courts with the role of counsel. judicial oversight. upon lawyers to follow court rules without all result, diametrically situation could produce
a the same factual a trial quickly results court files opposed depending how Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) expiration filing after the opinion above, adopt position As referenced we decline to period. similarly distinctions yield unsupportable which will between litigants. situated
Thus,
necessary
rule remains
to insure trial
the Lord/Butler
upon
in each
case the
judges
appealed
opportunity
opinе
raise,
intends to
and thus
appellant
issues which
meaning
records amendable to
provide appellate courts with
This firm
ful
review. See
While
waiver
we
ability
the harshness
alleviated
of criminal defen-
is
their
by challenging
dants to seek relief
effectiveness of
malpractice
Spe-
counsel and
defendants to file
actions.
civil
acknowledge our recent decision in Common-
cifically, we
164,
(2005),
wealth v.
582 Pa.
403 proactive prior expiration filing peri- to the of the appellants od.6
Therefore, we reverse the
and re
Superior Court
affirm
forth in
“in
rule first set
Lord that
order
review,
preserve
their claims
must
[ajppellants
comply
the trial
file a
whenever
court orders them to
State
on
ment of Matters
Complained
Appeal pursuant
Pa.
Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)
Any
R.A.P.1925.
issues
not raised
Lord,
statement
bewill
deemed waived.”
Justice files a dissenting opinion. SAYLOR SAYLOR, Justice dissenting. notes,
As the majority this appeal was allowed to reconsider decisions in Commonwealth v. 553 Pa. (1998), 571 Pa. A.2d 631 which a strict application mandate *8 waiver rule under pertaining to defects asso- filing ciated with the of a statement of matters complained of on appeal. Moreover, Commonwealth, acknowledge
6. we that the in its brief to court, opined this Moran, Superior that the Court's actions in Commonwealth v. (Pa.Supеr.2003) 823 923 A.2d were not inconsistent with Lord case, and Superior granted appellant’s Butler. In that the request permit timely for a remand to amendment of his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
404 and amicus the recognize the
Both
Commonwealth
Butler,
in
rule
in
solidified
and
adopted
the
covers a
by
majority
present
the
case
vast
reaffirmed
circumstances,
several
categories,
within
broad
falling
of
range
by failing
any
total
to file
Rule
including
non-compliance
(such
1925(b) statement;
as
imperfect procedural compliance
docketing
оr
to secure
trans-
filing
proper
late
failure
and/or
judge);
imperfect
compli-
and
substantive
mission to
trial
(for
or
example,
sufficiently
a failure to include
describe
ance
In a number
pursued
appeal).
to be
of
claims
case,
v.
circumstances,
companion
as in the
585
888 A.2d
405 circumstances, I recog- although of In this broad universe Lord and that motivated of the concerns validity nize reasoning, on majority’s present and which underlie Butler is balance, paradigm discretionary I favor the review 1925(b), can and in the terms of Rule which explicit reflected in seminal guidance supplied under implemented has been courts appellate and the intermediate decisions this Court Pa. 571 of discretion. Accord channeling exercise J., In this 453, (Saylor, concurring). 638 812 A.2d at that, ap- to counseled amicus relative regard, agree with (coupled discretionary review peals, policy allowing remands, to secure a suffi- appropriate, with curative 1925(a) justice better serves the ends opinion) cient Rule direct appel- mechanical elimination or curtailment of than the Indeed, I derelictions. attorney late on account of review displacement appeals, that reflexive whole believe direct control is litigants’ based on factors outside part, review right tension direct substantial with Constitution. See by Pennsylvania conferred Pa. Const. V, litigants, particularly applied § 9. se as Concerning pro art. meaningful there has been in cases such as which Schofield and the ends of Rule 1925 compliance policy and substantial satisfied, 1, supra policy been see note the strict waiver have unnecessаry unduly seems to me to be and an harsh also sanction. that, correct in certain circum-
Certainly majority is context, in the criminal availability post-convic- stances of counsel tion relief based a claim of ineffective assistance consequences noncompliance ameliorate the of counsel’s 1925(b).3 However, cases, litigant Rule in other with forced into the context be faced post-conviction generally will requirements. enhanced and substantive procedural integrity of this court and confidence in the
undermines
process."
unjustified,
noncompliance
example,
For
in the event of
total
attribut-
warranted,
counsel,
see
able to
full reinstatement of the direct
is
164, 173,
Halley,
Pa.
petitioner
position that he should
and the
thus will be restored to the
have been in but for counsel’s dereliction.
compliance
procedural
These include
with the
dic-
framework
Act,
§§
tated
the Post Conviction Relief
9541-
Pa.C.S.
realignment
substantial and unfavorable
bur-
dens,
*10
post-conviction petitioner
generally
as the
be re-
will
quired
prove
to
associated
merito-
prejudice
otherwise
claim,
distinguished
rious
as
from the standard
to
pertaining
preserved error
on direct
cognizable
appeal,
places
which
on
burden
the Commonwealth to demonstrate harmlessness
Howard,
a reasonable
beyond
doubt.
Commonwealth v.
Cf.
86, 100,
(1994)
1300,
(elaborating
538 Pa.
645 A.2d
1307
on the
distinction between the
burdens
to a
respective
pre-
relative
clаim of trial court error
one
served
versus
raised via ineffec-
tiveness).
well,
In
post-conviction
various situations as
review
foreclosed,
will be
such as when the defendant’s sentence will
review,
expire prior to the
of the
see
completion
Common-
11, 19-21,
597,
(2005),
v. O’Berg,
wealth
584 Pa.
602
litigant
pro
where the
acted
se
the time that the appeal
therefore,
lodged,
proceed
and
cannot
under an ineffec-
theory.
tiveness
The
of some latitude under Rule
availability
1925(b) in criminal
particularly significant
cases was also
Pennsylvania, because the
has
abrogated
policy
Court
against enforcing
the face of basic or fundamental
waiver
Clair,
affecting
rights,
error
substantive
see Commonwealth v.
418, 423,
272,
(Pa.1974),
458 Pa.
326
distinguished
A.2d
274
as
jurisdictions
from the
other
practice
many
including the
courts,
discretionary
federal
which
for
error
plain
allow
review
See,
in exceptional
e.g.,
circumstances.
Fed. Rule Crim. P.
Appellant
52(b).
§
generally
See
5 Am.Jur.2d
767
Review
(2005).4
context,
Pertaining
approach
fostering
the civil
to
collateral
litigation
questionable, particularly
post-
me
seems to
to be
where the
procedure already
mandatory prerequisite
trial motion
serves as a
to
Roush,
462,
preservation
appeal,
Chalkey
issue
see
569 Pa.
466-
491,
already putting
subject
A.2d
thus
claims
to
directly
court.
before
Accord
571 Pa.
J.,
(Saylor,
concurring)
(commenting
at 452 n.
priate pursuant express circumstances to the terms of Rule availability contempt sanctions for violation 1925(a) provide of a Rule order sufficient incentives to facili- tate 1925’s policy unduly impinging Rule without upon right constitutional direct I appeal. Accordingly, do maintaining strictly foreclosing favor Lord’s rule re- curative discretionary authority mands and such as were previously accomplish available the intermediate courts to meaningful appellate review in appropriate circumstances.
Finally, recognize Commonwealth’s that Lord position represented prevailing rule as the time of the material case, in this noncompliance Court was bound it, apply any change in its dictates should be made this Nevertheless, a prospective basis.5 this Court case, the reconsideration as a framed material one in this *11 there been persistent legitimate have questions concern- Lord’s I ing appropriate scope, and juris- believe sound prudential principles according favor the litigant the benefit of change clarification in Although such circumstances. I support therefore the Superior Court’s decision to conduct claim, of Appellee’s merits review hаving reviewed the Com- position monwealth’s substantive the merits of the resultant trial, Thus, I award of new believe it I have merit. Rather, merely juncture. would not affirm the at this award would a supplemental grant order and briefing schedule award, since, permit Court to address the in light of our order, grant Appellee limited has not his developed position support of validity. reasons,
For these I respectfully dissent relative to Court’s mandate. rule, noncompliance particularly
for counsel’s
with the
foregone
non-monetary.
issues are
Notably,
regard,
in this
itself
prospec-
Lord rule
was announced
tively.
Pa. at
See