J-S38031-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANDRE MAURICE LONDON : : Appellant : No. 1230 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 11, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001093-2020
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2026
Andre Maurice London (hereinafter, Appellant) appeals from the denial
of his timely petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA),
42 Pa.C.S. § 9541-9546, without a hearing. We affirm.
Briefly, the facts of this case established that Pennsylvania State
Trooper Zachary Railing received a notification to investigate an active
domestic violence incident. N.T. Bench Trial, 4/29/21, at 8-13. The property
to which the trooper was called to respond was a house that had been
subdivided into two apartments, one in the front of the building and one in
the rear. Id. at 13. The trooper arrived at the location and knocked on the
front door of the house, but no one answered. Id. at 15. The trooper then
walked the perimeter of the house, finding a Street Sweeper shotgun lying on
the ground underneath a window at the rear of the house. Id. at 16-18. After
securing the weapon in his vehicle, the trooper returned to the house and J-S38031-25
entered through the unlocked front door. Id. at 22. After Trooper Railing
pounded on a locked door in the kitchen that led to the rear apartment,
Appellant opened the rear apartment’s door. Id. at 25.
When he opened the door, Appellant had blood stains on the front of his
shirt, one eye was very swollen, and he had other swelling and bruising on his
face. Id. Trooper Railing testified that Appellant’s face looked like he had
been the victim of an aggravated assault. Id. at 28. Because he had found
the weapon outside of the house, the trooper asked Appellant if he owned any
firearms, which Appellant answered affirmatively. Id. at 30. Trooper Railing
then asked, “Is it a [S]treet [S]weeper shotgun?” and Appellant said that it
was. Id. Appellant told the trooper that his shotgun was behind the recliner
in the living room of the apartment, but when he and the trooper went to look
for the gun there, it was missing from that spot. Id. at 31-32. Appellant “was
surprised” that the weapon was not in its proper place, but then stated that
he did not know where it went. Id. at 32.
Although the shotgun was processed for fingerprints and DNA, no
evidence of any value was found thereby. Id. at 56-58. Additionally, the
parties stipulated to Appellant’s two prior felony convictions, which preclude
him from lawful possession of a firearm. Id. at 63. Appellant testified that
he was babysitting for a friend who lived in the rear apartment. Id. at 65-66.
He explained that he had legally purchased the firearm before his prior
convictions, but had to get rid of it when he was granted parole. Id. at 67.
Thus, the gun stayed at his friend’s house, and Appellant was “teaching her
-2- J-S38031-25
granddaughters gun etiquette like [he] learned when [he] was little.” Id. at
68.
On this evidence, Appellant was convicted of one count of persons not
to possess a firearm, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a), and the trial court sentenced him
to 3 to 6 years of incarceration. Appellant appealed his judgment of sentence
to this Court, which we affirmed on September 27, 2022; our Supreme Court
denied his subsequent petition for allowance of appeal on April 11, 2023.
Commonwealth v. London, 285 A.3d 954 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 295 A.3d 1273 (Pa. 2023).
Appellant filed a timely, pro se, PCRA petition on July 27, 2023. Counsel
was appointed and was granted additional time to amend the pro se petition.
On February 19, 2025, counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a
Turner/Finley1 letter in the PCRA court, indicating that counsel was unable
to find any meritorious issues to raise on Appellant’s behalf. Appellant filed a
proper pro se objection to his counsel’s request to withdraw. Nonetheless,
the trial court granted counsel’s request to withdraw on March 21, 2025, and
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition in its entirety on April 11, 2025.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on May 8, 2025. On May
13, 2025, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. The PCRA court filed an opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a) on June 18, 2025. ____________________________________________
1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-3- J-S38031-25
In this appeal, we note that Appellant’s pro se brief is not a model of
clarity. He raises the following issues, which we set forth verbatim:
(1) Was trial counsel ineffective for failure to file a motion for a suppression hearing to have the weapon suppressed that was found outside of the house that was not in petitioner’s possession?
(2) Did arresting officers have probable cause to arrest petitioner for weapons when petitioner did not possess a weapon, nor have constructive possession?
(3) Should petitioner’s statement, (that he owned a weapon) while under interrogation be admitted into trial, when he was not read any Miranda warnings?
(4) Was the evidence insufficient to convict petitioner of the weapon charge?
(5) Did the statement (“I own a street sweeper”) mean that petitioner owned “the” same weapon that police found outside of the residence under a window?
Appellant’s brief at unnumbered 5 (unnecessary capitalization removed).
“We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the
record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is free of legal
error.” Commonwealth v. Min, 320 A.3d 727, 730 (Pa. Super. 2024)
(citation omitted). The scope of our review is “limited to the findings of the
PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to
the prevailing party at the trial level.” Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d
426, 438 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). We defer to the factual findings of the
post-conviction court, which was tasked with hearing the evidence and
assessing witness credibility. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959,
979 (Pa. 2023). The PCRA court’s legal determinations, however, are subject
-4- J-S38031-25
to plenary review. Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802, 805 (Pa. Super.
2012).
Appellant’s claims are waived. In the order dated May 13, 2025, the
PCRA court directed Appellant to file his statement of errors pursuant to Rule
1925(b) within 21 days, noted that the statement had to be filed of record,
provided the addresses of both the PCRA court and the clerk of courts where
the statement should be filed, and noted that any issue not properly raised in
the statement “shall be deemed waived.” Order, 5/13/25 (single page). This
order complies with the dictates of Rule 1925(b)(3). Moreover, the docket
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S38031-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANDRE MAURICE LONDON : : Appellant : No. 1230 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 11, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001093-2020
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2026
Andre Maurice London (hereinafter, Appellant) appeals from the denial
of his timely petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA),
42 Pa.C.S. § 9541-9546, without a hearing. We affirm.
Briefly, the facts of this case established that Pennsylvania State
Trooper Zachary Railing received a notification to investigate an active
domestic violence incident. N.T. Bench Trial, 4/29/21, at 8-13. The property
to which the trooper was called to respond was a house that had been
subdivided into two apartments, one in the front of the building and one in
the rear. Id. at 13. The trooper arrived at the location and knocked on the
front door of the house, but no one answered. Id. at 15. The trooper then
walked the perimeter of the house, finding a Street Sweeper shotgun lying on
the ground underneath a window at the rear of the house. Id. at 16-18. After
securing the weapon in his vehicle, the trooper returned to the house and J-S38031-25
entered through the unlocked front door. Id. at 22. After Trooper Railing
pounded on a locked door in the kitchen that led to the rear apartment,
Appellant opened the rear apartment’s door. Id. at 25.
When he opened the door, Appellant had blood stains on the front of his
shirt, one eye was very swollen, and he had other swelling and bruising on his
face. Id. Trooper Railing testified that Appellant’s face looked like he had
been the victim of an aggravated assault. Id. at 28. Because he had found
the weapon outside of the house, the trooper asked Appellant if he owned any
firearms, which Appellant answered affirmatively. Id. at 30. Trooper Railing
then asked, “Is it a [S]treet [S]weeper shotgun?” and Appellant said that it
was. Id. Appellant told the trooper that his shotgun was behind the recliner
in the living room of the apartment, but when he and the trooper went to look
for the gun there, it was missing from that spot. Id. at 31-32. Appellant “was
surprised” that the weapon was not in its proper place, but then stated that
he did not know where it went. Id. at 32.
Although the shotgun was processed for fingerprints and DNA, no
evidence of any value was found thereby. Id. at 56-58. Additionally, the
parties stipulated to Appellant’s two prior felony convictions, which preclude
him from lawful possession of a firearm. Id. at 63. Appellant testified that
he was babysitting for a friend who lived in the rear apartment. Id. at 65-66.
He explained that he had legally purchased the firearm before his prior
convictions, but had to get rid of it when he was granted parole. Id. at 67.
Thus, the gun stayed at his friend’s house, and Appellant was “teaching her
-2- J-S38031-25
granddaughters gun etiquette like [he] learned when [he] was little.” Id. at
68.
On this evidence, Appellant was convicted of one count of persons not
to possess a firearm, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a), and the trial court sentenced him
to 3 to 6 years of incarceration. Appellant appealed his judgment of sentence
to this Court, which we affirmed on September 27, 2022; our Supreme Court
denied his subsequent petition for allowance of appeal on April 11, 2023.
Commonwealth v. London, 285 A.3d 954 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 295 A.3d 1273 (Pa. 2023).
Appellant filed a timely, pro se, PCRA petition on July 27, 2023. Counsel
was appointed and was granted additional time to amend the pro se petition.
On February 19, 2025, counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a
Turner/Finley1 letter in the PCRA court, indicating that counsel was unable
to find any meritorious issues to raise on Appellant’s behalf. Appellant filed a
proper pro se objection to his counsel’s request to withdraw. Nonetheless,
the trial court granted counsel’s request to withdraw on March 21, 2025, and
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition in its entirety on April 11, 2025.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on May 8, 2025. On May
13, 2025, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. The PCRA court filed an opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a) on June 18, 2025. ____________________________________________
1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-3- J-S38031-25
In this appeal, we note that Appellant’s pro se brief is not a model of
clarity. He raises the following issues, which we set forth verbatim:
(1) Was trial counsel ineffective for failure to file a motion for a suppression hearing to have the weapon suppressed that was found outside of the house that was not in petitioner’s possession?
(2) Did arresting officers have probable cause to arrest petitioner for weapons when petitioner did not possess a weapon, nor have constructive possession?
(3) Should petitioner’s statement, (that he owned a weapon) while under interrogation be admitted into trial, when he was not read any Miranda warnings?
(4) Was the evidence insufficient to convict petitioner of the weapon charge?
(5) Did the statement (“I own a street sweeper”) mean that petitioner owned “the” same weapon that police found outside of the residence under a window?
Appellant’s brief at unnumbered 5 (unnecessary capitalization removed).
“We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the
record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is free of legal
error.” Commonwealth v. Min, 320 A.3d 727, 730 (Pa. Super. 2024)
(citation omitted). The scope of our review is “limited to the findings of the
PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to
the prevailing party at the trial level.” Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d
426, 438 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). We defer to the factual findings of the
post-conviction court, which was tasked with hearing the evidence and
assessing witness credibility. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959,
979 (Pa. 2023). The PCRA court’s legal determinations, however, are subject
-4- J-S38031-25
to plenary review. Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802, 805 (Pa. Super.
2012).
Appellant’s claims are waived. In the order dated May 13, 2025, the
PCRA court directed Appellant to file his statement of errors pursuant to Rule
1925(b) within 21 days, noted that the statement had to be filed of record,
provided the addresses of both the PCRA court and the clerk of courts where
the statement should be filed, and noted that any issue not properly raised in
the statement “shall be deemed waived.” Order, 5/13/25 (single page). This
order complies with the dictates of Rule 1925(b)(3). Moreover, the docket
indicates that Appellant was served with this order via certified mail. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(B)(3)(a)(v) (providing for service upon an unrepresented
party by sending a copy by certified mail to the party’s place of confinement).
However, Appellant never filed a concise statement.
Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial component of the appellate process because
it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan
to raise on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa.
Super. 2020). “[A]ny issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived for appellate review.” Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 1106 (citing
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)); see also Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement … are waived.”).
Although Appellant is proceeding pro se, he is not exempt from compliance
with our procedural rules; under Pennsylvania law, pro se defendants are
-5- J-S38031-25
subject to the same rules of procedure as are represented defendants. See,
e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523, 534 (Pa. 2006).
Appellant’s failure to comply with the PCRA court’s order to file a
statement of errors requires a finding of waiver of all his claims on appeal.
Commonwealth v. Snyder, 316 A.3d 178, 181 (Pa. Super. 2024).2
Accordingly, as all issues herein have been waived, we affirm the PCRA court’s
order denying relief.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
2 We note further that, even if Appellant’s claims had not been waived due to
his failure to file a statement of errors, we would affirm the denial of relief with respect to Appellant’s first three issues based upon the well-analyzed opinion of the Honorable Thomas P. McCabe, dated June 18, 2025. Therein, Judge McCabe found that counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress when the gun had been found in plain view in an area where Appellant had no expectation of privacy, that Appellant had not been arrested without probable cause, and that no Miranda warnings were required before the officer asked Appellant if he owned a weapon, as he was not in custody at that time. See PCRA Court Opinion, 6/18/25, at 2-4; see also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Further, Appellant’s final two claims, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and insufficient proof that the weapon he admitted to owning was the one found by the officer, were either reviewed on direct appeal or could have been raised at that time, making these issues previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2) (stating that “an issue has been previously litigated if … the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) (stating that “[f]or purposes of this subchapter, an issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding”).
-6- J-S38031-25
Date: 1/30/2026
-7-