J-S56025-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 R.I. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : N.A : : Appellant : No. 750 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered, April 5, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division at No(s): 2018-FC-50-12. BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 07, 2018 N.A. (Husband) appeals from the order granting R.I. (Wife) her petition for protection under the Protection From Abuse (PFA) Act. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101 – 6122. We affirm. Although the parties’ date of marriage is unclear, they were living together for approximately four tumultuous months when, on December 31, 2017, an argument became violent, and Husband repeatedly struck Wife. Wife called the police, who helped her leave the marital home. Wife obtained a temporary PFA order in January 2018. On April 5, 2018, after a series of continuances, the trial court held a hearing during which the parties, their roommate, and the responding police officer all testified. The trial court J-S56025-18 granted Wife’s petition and entered a three-year PFA order. Husband presents this appeal.1 Husband raises the following issues: 1. Whether [Wife] presented evidence at trial sufficient to sustain the trial court’s decision granting her request for a final protection order. ____________________________________________ 1 Husband initially failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925 when he did not abide by the deadline set forth in the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order directing him to provide his statement of errors. For that reason, we are hesitant to even review the merits of Husband’s case. As both the Supreme Court and an en banc panel of this Court explained, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is a bright-line rule, such that failure to comply with the minimal requirements will result in automatic waiver of the issues. See Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 888 A.3d 222, 223 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis original) (citing Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). Our Supreme Court emphatically disapproves of any leniency on this rule. Id. (citing Castillo, 888 A.2 at 779). The reason for the Courts’ strictness is the potential for inconsistent results; discretion to pick and choose when to find waiver produces unsupportable distinctions between similarly situated litigants. Id. However, Rule 1925 is not without exceptions when there is good cause shown. In extraordinary circumstances, the trial judge may allow for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc. See Pa.R.A.P 1925(b)(2). Instantly, we glean from the record that Husband substituted counsel after the trial court’s decision; it was Husband’s new counsel who filed the notice of appeal. However, the substitution was not formalized for weeks thereafter and even then, not docketed until after Memorial Day Weekend. Perhaps as a consequence, the trial court likely sent its Rule 1925(b) order to Husband’s former counsel, or, at least, Husband’s new counsel averred he never received ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals