HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002807-2007
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
MANUEL A. RODRIGUEZ : CP-21-CR-2807-2007
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Ebert, Jr., J., April 12, 2010 –
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 4, 2009, this Court entered an Order denying Defendant’s
Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief. Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. P. 908, the
Court gave Defendant Rodriguez notice of his right to appeal the denial of this
Motion to the Superior Court within 30 days. Even though Defendant had
appointed counsel representing him on his Motion, he chose to file a Pro Se
Notice of Appeal on December 16, 2009. The Superior Court docketing
statement exit date was December 24, 2009.
This Court then issued an Order of Court dated January 4, 2010, ordering
the Defendant to file “A Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal”
on or before January 25, 2010. The Defendant filed no statement by the date
ordered. This Court realizing that it had not used the precise language stated in
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1925 (b), issued a second Order of Court dated February 12, 2010,
directing the Pro Se Defendant to file “A Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal” which directed the Defendant to file this statement on
or before March 5, 2010. Again, no statement was filed.
In an exercise of caution, considering the Superior Court’s holding in
Commonwealth v. Scott, 1952 A.2d 1190, (Pa.Super. 2008) this Court issued yet
another Order dated March 11, 2010, requiring the Defendant to file “A Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal” on or before April 9, 2010. This
Order was served on both the Defendant and his previously court appointed
counsel. Again, no statement was filed.
DISCUSSION
This case involved Defendant pleading guilty to one count of Unlawful
Delivery or Manufacture or Possession with Intent to Deliver a Schedule II,
Controlled Substance in exchange for a set 5 to 10 year sentence in a State
Correctional Institute pursuant to an agreement Defendant negotiated with the
Commonwealth. Defendant’s initial Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief
focused on the ineffectiveness of the Public Defender who negotiated this plea
agreement.
Be that as it may, this Court is not now allowed to speculate about the
supposed errors complained of on appeal. The Defendant has been given
numerous opportunities to file “A Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal” and has failed to do so. Consequently, in accordance with the holding of
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, (Pa. 2005), the Defendant has not
raised any issues on appeal and accordingly, all issues are now deemed waived.
2
This Court has committed no error and this Court’s Order of December 4,
2009, denying Defendant’s Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief should be
affirmed.
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire
Court appointed for Defendant
Manuel Rodriguez, Pro Se
Defendant
HQ-0823
SCI – Fayette
P. O. Box 9999
LaBelle, PA 15450
bas
3