Opinion
J-S08017-17 No. 615 WDA 2016
05-26-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES CHARLES COLE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0015767-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
While I agree Appellant's discretionary aspects of sentencing issue is waived for purposes of our review, I do so based on other grounds; I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that Appellant waived or abandoned his request for reinstatement of his post-sentence motion rights nunc pro tunc in his response to the court's Rule 907 notice. In my view, Appellant consistently requested reinstatement of his post-sentence motion rights nunc pro tunc throughout the PCRA proceedings.
Nevertheless, "the failure to raise an issue in an ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of that issue on appeal." Commonwealth v. Poncala , 915 A.2d 97, 100 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 678, 932 A.2d 1287 (2007). Additionally, "[t]he failure to develop an adequate argument in an appellate brief may result in waiver of the claim." Commonwealth v. Beshore , 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 679, 982 A.2d 509 (2007). Here, Appellant did not challenge the PCRA court's failure to reinstate his post-sentence motion rights nunc pro tunc in either his court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement or his appellate brief. Thus, I agree Appellant waived any challenge to the PCRA court's failure to reinstate Appellant's post-sentence motion rights nunc pro tunc, but I do so based on the limited grounds of Rule 1925(b) and Beshore , supra. Accordingly, I concur in the result.