Com. v. Davis, R.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 24, 2020
Docket263 WDA 2019
StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Davis, R. (Com. v. Davis, R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. v. Davis, R., (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

J-S44026-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RICKEY DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 263 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 4, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0007038-2018

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2020

Before us is Rickey Davis’s timely appeal of the judgment of sentence

imposed on his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or a

Controlled Substance.1 We affirm.

We initially remanded to the trial court because the certified record did

not demonstrate that Davis had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

waived his right to counsel. The trial court on remand clarified that although

it had colloquied Davis before trial and confirmed that Davis’s waiver was

proper, no transcript of that proceeding exists. The court therefore conducted

an evidentiary hearing and determined that Davis’s waiver was knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/15/2020, at 2.

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). J-S44026-19

Regarding the appeal, Davis failed to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement,

despite a court order directing him to do so. See Order, filed 2/27/2019. In

so doing, he waived all issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). We therefore affirm.

Even if he had filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, we would affirm, as Davis

makes frivolous arguments on appeal that his judgment of sentence is

somehow infirm because he “refuse[s] the office of the trustee” and “there is

no corpus delicti….” Davis’s Br. at 1.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/24/2020

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Lord
719 A.2d 306 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Com. v. Davis, R., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-davis-r-pasuperct-2020.