Com. v. Oguejiofor, E.
This text of Com. v. Oguejiofor, E. (Com. v. Oguejiofor, E.) 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.
Opinion
J-S55017-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EMEKA KINGSLEY OGUEJIOFOR : : Appellant : No. 27 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 28, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-SA-0000173-2016
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
Appellant, Emeka Kingsley Oguejiofor, appeals pro se from the
judgment of sentence of $2,140.00, imposed November 28, 2016, following
his failure to appear at a summary hearing resulting in his conviction for
unprofessional conduct/incompetency in connection with the sale of an
automobile and failure to pay over taxes or fees to the Commonwealth. 1 We
affirm.
The Commonwealth filed charges against Appellant arising out of his
failure to pay state taxes related to an automobile registration. Appellant
failed to appear for the municipal court hearing and was found guilty of the
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Respectively, 63 Pa.C.S. §§ 818.19(7), 818.19(25). J-S55017-17
charges in abstentia on August 18, 2016.
On September 16, 2016, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to
the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. A summary appeal hearing
was scheduled for November 28, 2016. Following Appellant’s failure to
appear for the summary appeal hearing, the court upheld the lower court’s
decision. See Order, 11/28/2016. Appellant was sentenced to pay
$2,140.00. Id. According to the order, failure to pay within thirty days
could result in the issuance of a warrant for Appellant’s arrest. Id.
On December 28, 2016, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to this
Court. Thereafter, the court issued a concise statement order pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing Appellant to file a statement of matters
complained of on appeal within twenty-one (21) days. See Order,
1/13/2017. Appellant failed to comply with this order. Thereafter, the trial
court filed a statement noting Appellant’s noncompliance. See Trial Ct.
Stmt., 3/1/2017. The trial court deemed any issues raised by Appellant on
appeal waived due to Appellant’s failure to file a concise statement. See id.
at 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005)
(reaffirming “the bright line rule first set forth in [Commonwealth v.]
Lord[, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)). The Commonwealth also urges this Court
to find that Appellant’s failure to file a concise statement and an appellate
brief in conformity with the Rules of Appellate Procedure render any issues
raised waived on appeal. See Commonwealth’s Br. at 3-5.
-2- J-S55017-17
While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that Appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because he lacks legal training. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d
1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996). In Castillo, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court disapproved of the intermediate courts creating exceptions to Lord
and its progeny:
“[I]n 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 Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780 (quoting Lord, 719 A.2d at 309).
The record confirms that the written order was docketed and Appellant
received written notice of the order via certified mail on January 17, 2017.
Therefore, any issues presented are deemed waived due to Appellant’s
failure to file a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See
Lord, 719 A.2d at 309. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of
Appellant’s argument.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/14/2017
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Oguejiofor, E., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-oguejiofor-e-pasuperct-2017.