Com. v. Titus, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 1243 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A15020-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DANIEL CHRISTOPHER TITUS : : Appellant : No. 1243 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County Criminal Division at No: CP-29-SA-0000004-2024

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

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 31, 2025

Appellant, Daniel Christopher Titus, appeals pro se from the order

entered on August 8, 2024, denying Appellant’s petition to file a summary

appeal nunc pro tunc. Upon review, we affirm.

This matter arose on January 13, 2024[, when Appellant] was charged with one count of Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, DUI Related. On January 22, 2024, Appellant appeared [pro se] before [the Magisterial District Judge] and pled guilty to the offense. Apparently not realizing that his conviction would result of an additional license suspension and having missed the thirty day period for filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), Appellant filed a Petition to File a Summary Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc on June 12, 2024. By Order of June 26, 2024[, the trial court] set a hearing date of August 6, 2024 in order to hear Appellant’s nunc pro tunc Petition. At the hearing Appellant explained that he had called the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (hereinafter “PennDOT”) to learn how to appeal the summary conviction, and having relied on what an unnamed individual at PennDOT told him, missed the time for ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A15020-25

filing an appeal. Appellant also explained that he had discussed the matter with his probation officer from Fulton County Probation Department and the Fulton County Public Defender. However, none of those individuals appeared to testify at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing[, the trial court] denied relief requested and dismissed Appellant’s Petition. It is from this Order that Appellant appeals.

On August 28, 2024, Appellant filed the instant Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On September 5, 2024, [the trial court] issued an Order, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, directing Appellant to submit his Concise Statement of Matters Complained Of On Appeal by September 26, 2024. As of the authoring of this Opinion, Appellant has failed to submit a Concise Statement.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/08/24, at 1-2 (footnote and internal citation omitted)

(emphasis in original).

On August 8, 2024, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition. This

appeal followed.

In denying relief, the trial court noted that it ordered Appellant to file a

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. As Appellant failed to

do so, the trial court found that Appellant waived all issues for appellate

review. Trial Court Opinion, October 8, 2024, at 2-3 (citing Commonwealth

v. Auchmuty, 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002)). We disagree.

A review of the order in question reveals that the order fails to conform

with the notice requirements of Rule 1925(b)(3)(iii), which states, in relevant

part, that an order “shall specify . . . both the place the appellant can serve

the Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can mail the

Statement.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii). The trial court’s Rule 1925 order

-2- J-A15020-25

contains neither of these required statements. That was error by the trial

court. Commonwealth v. Massey, 2022 WL 4231023, at *2 (Pa. Super.

unpublished memorandum September 14, 2022).1 Accordingly, the trial

court’s order directing the filing of the statement was unenforceable because

it did not strictly comply with Rule 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Stroud,

298 A.3d 1152, 1156 (Pa. Super. 2023). Because the court’s order was

deficient, we cannot conclude that Appellant waived his claim before us.

Massey, supra, at *3 (“Our appellate courts have recognized that an

appellant’s noncompliance with Rule 1925(b) only results in waiver when the

trial court has complied with notice requirements of Rule 1925(b).”). Because

the trial court’s order did not conform with Rule 1925(b)(3)(iii)’s notice

requirements, we conclude that Appellant’s failure to file a timely Statement

may not serve as grounds upon which to find waiver.

On appeal, Appellant is challenging the trial court’s denial of his petition

to file a summary appeal nunc pro tunc.

“An abuse of discretion standard governs our review of the propriety of

a grant or denial of an appeal nunc pro tunc.” Commonwealth v. Stock,

679 A.2d 760, 762 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion

occurs “when the law is ‘overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised

____________________________________________

1 See generally Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (noting that unpublished memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value).

-3- J-A15020-25

is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will

as shown by the evidence or the record.’” Commonwealth v. Savage, 234

A.3d 723, 726 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

“[A]n appeal nunc pro tunc is intended as a remedy to vindicate the

right to an appeal where that right has been lost due to certain extraordinary

circumstances.” Stock, 679 A.2d at 764. We explained the above standard

as follows:

A party seeking leave to appeal from a summary conviction nunc pro tunc has the burden of demonstrating two things: (1) that the delay in the filing of the appeal was caused by “extraordinary circumstances” involving fraud or a wrongful or negligent act of a court official resulting in injury to that party; and (2) that upon learning of the existence of the grounds relied upon for nunc pro tunc relief, the party acted promptly to seek such relief. Overall, the touchstone for our inquiry is whether [the appellant] was denied [his] right of appeal by circumstances not of [his] own doing so as to merit the grant of this “extraordinary remedy.”

Savage, 234 A.3d at 727 (internal citations omitted).

As noted, at the hearing held on August 6, 2024, on Appellant’s request

to file his Summary Appeal nunc pro tunc, Appellant failed to introduce any

evidence to meet Stock/Savage. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/08/24, at 2.

On appeal, Appellant offers only one short paragraph to the timeliness

of the appeal, blaming again some unidentified individuals for failing to timely

appeal. The remaining three pages of the “Briefing Statement”2 are entirely

devoted to rehashing the facts, seeking to undo the summary conviction.

2 Appellant’s Briefing Statement fails to comply with all briefing requirements

set in the rules of appellate procedure.

-4- J-A15020-25

Nowhere does Appellant describe the “extraordinary circumstances” that

prevented him from filing a timely appeal, when he found out about them, and

what he did once he learned about them.

The record before us, therefore, does not demonstrate the extraordinary

circumstances that would entitle Appellant to a nunc pro tunc appeal.

Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court

and affirm its order denying Appellant’s request for a nunc pro tunc appeal.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/31/2025

-5-