Opinion
J-A20025-19 No. 1892 MDA 2018
10-01-2019
C.B. v. S.L. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 201810677 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:
S.L. appeals from the protection from abuse ("PFA") order entered against her in favor of C.B. Because S.L., who has acted pro se throughout the proceedings, failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, she has waived all issues for review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Accordingly, we affirm.
The underlying facts supporting the entry of the PFA order are not relevant to our disposition. Procedurally, C.B. filed a petition for protection from abuse against his former paramour, S.L., on September 14, 2018. Following an ex parte hearing, the court denied C.B.'s petition for a temporary PFA order but scheduled a final hearing for September 20, 2018. S.L. filed a motion for continuance; the court granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing for October 18, 2018. According to the trial court, S.L. received proper notice of the new hearing date. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/3/19, at 1 (unpaginated).
S.L. did not attend the hearing. After the conclusion of C.B.'s testimony, the court entered a final PFA order. S.L. thereafter filed a motion to modify the order. The court ordered a hearing on the motion, but the certified record does not reflect whether a hearing took place.
S.L. filed a timely notice of appeal. The court entered an order on November 28, 2018, requiring S.L. to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Both the order and the trial court docket reflect that a copy of the order was mailed to S.L. on November 28, 2018, the date the trial court entered the order. S.L. did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded S.L. waived all issues by failing to file a statement.
In her appellate brief, S.L. attempts to rebut C.B.'s testimony and explain her failure to attend the hearing. She does not address her failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, except insofar as she acknowledges that she may have not filed all necessary documents because she is self-represented, and requests this Court to excuse her insufficiencies in that regard.
S.L.'s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement is fatal to her appeal. When a trial court orders an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, issues not included in the statement are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). It is imperative that an appellant comply with the Rule, as the statement is "intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues that the parties plan to raise on appeal[, and] is thus a crucial component of appellate process." Commonwealth v. McBride , 957 A.2d 752, 758 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Butler , 812 A.2d 631, 636 (Pa. 2002)). The bright-line application of waiver for failure to conform with Rule 1925(b) applies to pro se appellants with equal force. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Schofield , 888 A.2d 771, 773-75 (Pa. 2005) (holding pro se appellant who failed to comply with Rule 1925(b) waived all issues); Commonwealth v. Boniella , 158 A.3d 162, 163-64 (Pa.Super. 2017) (holding pro se appellant's failure to file timely Rule 1925(b) statement waived all issues).
As S.L. failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement though ordered to do so by the trial court, we are precluded from reaching the merits of any issues, and thus affirm the order of the court below.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/01/2019