holding that if an appellant is directed to file a concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), any issues not raised in that ____________________________________________ 2At first glance, Appellants’ issues purport to challenge both the May 21, 2021 order denying the motion to open and the August 9, 2021 order denying the motion to strike. However, further review indicates that both issues pertain solely to the May 21, 2021 order denying the motion to open. -3- J-S03019-22 statement are waived
How later courts described this case
- holding that if an appellant is directed to file a concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), any issues not raised in that ____________________________________________ 2At first glance, Appellants’ issues purport to challenge both the May 21, 2021 order denying the motion to open and the August 9, 2021 order denying the motion to strike. However, further review indicates that both issues pertain solely to the May 21, 2021 order denying the motion to open. -3- J-S03019-22 statement are waived
- stating that “from this date forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever -3- J-S01025-20 the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
- holding that “from this date forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
- holding that “from this day forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, Appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Commonwealth v. Burton
719 A.2d 306, 308 (Pa. 1998), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 431
The opinion
NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the Majority, I write separately to clarify the interplay between Rule 1410(B)(1)(c) and Rule 1925(b). The Majority notes that, “the potential for construing Rule 1410 as the exclusive provision for preserving an appellate issue is understandable.” Majority at 420, 719 A.2d at 309. I wish to emphasize that, while such an interpretation of Rule 1410 is “understandable,” it is nonetheless incorrect. Where the trial court orders an appellant to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), Rule 1410(B)(1)(c) will not save any issues omitted from such a statement from being waived.