Com. v. Hernandez, G.

Opinion

J-S22019-25

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GABRIEL BENITO ROBERT : HERNANDEZ : : No. 1338 MDA 2024 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-SA-0000161-2024

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 29, 2025

Gabriel Benito Robert Hernandez has appealed pro se from the judgment

of sentence imposed after the court convicted him of the summary offense of

operating a vehicle with a suspended registration. Upon concluding that the

trial court failed to properly serve Appellant with its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) order,

we remanded to the court for an opinion addressing the issues stated in the

Rule 1925(b) statement filed by Appellant on May 19, 2025. Among the errors

Appellant raised was that the trial court conducted his de novo bench trial

without providing reasonable accommodations pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), such as by allowing a guardian to assist him.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S22019-25

In accordance with our remand order, the trial court filed a new opinion.

Therein, it addressed only the ADA-related claim of error, requesting that we

vacate Appellant’s sentence and conviction and remand for the court to

schedule a hearing concerning Appellant’s claimed need for ADA

accommodations, after which it will conduct a new trial. See Trial Court

Opinion, 9/8/25, at 1.

Appellant thereafter filed applications for relief in this Court presenting

myriad arguments including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the trial

court’s failure to address his other claims of error are tacit admissions that

they are meritorious; (2) conducting an ADA colloquy would be an improper

collateral attack on an guardianship decree;1 (3) the trial court should be

referred to the Attorney General and Judicial Conduct Board; and (4) pursuant

to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(b), the Commonwealth’s failure to specifically deny

averments in Appellants’ applications amount to admissions.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, we hereby grant the trial court’s

request to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial

following an assessment of Appellant’s ADA rights. Accord Commonwealth

v. Ghee, 889 A.2d 1275, 1281 (Pa.Super. 2005) (vacating judgment of

sentence and remanding for trial court to conduct hearing on whether

1 The decree Appellant submitted to this Court, captioned as coming from the

Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, is not signed by the judge and bears no stamp indicating that it was filed by the court.

-2- J-S22019-25

defendant’s rights were safeguarded); cf. Commonwealth v. Shie, 307 A.3d

668, 2023 WL 6878610 (Pa.Super. 2023) (non-precedential decision)

(denying relief where the certified record revealed that the court provided the

ADA accommodations requested by the defendant).

We reject Appellant’s suggestion that the trial court has conceded the

merit of any of his other claims of error by addressing only his ADA claim,

concluding instead that a new trial grant moots them. Nor do we lend any

credence to Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth has assented to any of

the allegations in his filings in this Court, as the Rules of Civil Procedure have

no bearing in this criminal case. We additionally deny the remainder of the

claims raised in Appellant’s pending applications without prejudice for him to

present any non-frivolous issues raised therein, or in his Rule 1925(b)

statement, to the trial court upon remand.

Applications for relief denied. Judgment of sentence and conviction

vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/29/2025

-3-