Com. v. Kirk, G.

J-A13002-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GLENN A. KIRK, IV. : : Appellant : No. 1592 WDA 2024 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 25, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-SA-0000189-2024 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GLENN A. KIRK : : Appellant : No. 95 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 19, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-SA-0000170-2024

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MAY 1, 2026 In these consolidated pro se appeals, Glenn A. Kirk IV challenges the November 25, 2024 and December 19, 2024 judgments of sentence imposing an aggregate $500 fine following his convictions at unrelated criminal dockets of two counts of driving an unregistered vehicle, and one count each, driving J-A13002-26 without a license, and driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked.1 As all of Appellant’s issues are waived, we affirm.

These appeals stem from motor vehicle traffic stops that occurred in Washington County on June 5, 2024, and July 10, 2024, respectively. During both stops, Appellant was charged with summary violations of Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code (“Vehicle Code”). Specifically, on June 5, 2024, Pennsylvania State Trooper Dustin Fidazzo charged Appellant with driving an unregistered vehicle and driving without a license. Likewise, on July 10, 2024, Charleroi Regional Police Officer Marcus Richardson charged Appellant with driving an unregistered vehicle and driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked. Appellant was convicted of all four summary offenses in magisterial district court and exercised his right to summary appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County.

After presiding over separate de novo trials for the respective cases on November 24, 2024 and December 19, 2024, the Honorable Traci L. McDonald rendered guilty verdicts on all four counts. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal, and the trial court issued Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) orders directing him to file and serve Rule 1925(b) statements within twenty-one days of the orders.

____________________________________________

-2- J-A13002-26

While the orders satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(i)-(iv)2 and the clerk of court noted the dates of service on the docket pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C), Appellant neglected to file the concise statements of record. Notwithstanding that failure, Judge McDonald issued Rule 1925(b) opinions addressing Appellant’s various challenges.3 Appellant did not seek

____________________________________________

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3).

-3- J-A13002-26 to belatedly file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and the record was transmitted to this Court.

In his consolidated brief, Appellant presents nine issues for our review: 1. Did the prosecution prove in personam jurisdiction?

2. Does the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction?

3. Did the trial court violate [A]ppellant's Constitutionally protected rights?

4. Did the trial court violate the Fifth Amendment Taking's Clause?

5. Did the trial court engage [A]ppellant in a Bill of Attainder?

6. Did the trial court follow the principle of stare decisis?

7. Did the trial court violate [A]ppellant's right to due process of law?

8. Did the prosecution state a cause of action for which relief may be granted?

9. Were the traffic stops illegal according to standing Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law?

Appellant’s brief at 11-12.

At the outset, we review whether Appellant has waived his claims by failing to comply with Rule 1925(b). Generally, an appellant’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in waiver of the issues raised on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).

-4- J-A13002-26

There is no dispute that Appellant did not file the court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statements. It is of no import that Appellant may have served the statements on the trial court or that Judge McDonald issued opinions addressing Appellant’s claims. See e.g., Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“even if a trial court ignores the untimeliness of a Rule 1925(b) statement and addresses the merits, those claims still must be considered waived”); Commonwealth v. Echevarria, 273 A.3d 1069 (Pa. Super. 2022) (non-precedential decision) (finding waiver where the appellant served trial court with a copy of the concise statement but failed to file it pursuant to Rule 1925(b)).

Moreover, as a pro se litigant, Appellant is not entitled to the narrow protections that Rule 1925(c)(3) carves in criminal cases where counsel fails to comply with an order directing an appellant to file a concise statement.

Plainly, Appellant is not represented by counsel and he cannot assert his own ineffectiveness. Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 859 WDA 2025, 2026 WL 194288, at *3 (Pa.Super. 2026) (non-precedential decision) (“[appellant’s] status as a pro se litigant does not entitle him to any advantage due to his lack of legal training”) (citation omitted). Hence, Appellant’s issues are waived pursuant to Rule 1925(b)(4)(vii) due to his failure to file the court-ordered concise statements.

As Appellant waived all issues for purposes of these appeals, we affirm the judgments of sentence.

-5- J-A13002-26

Judgments of sentence affirmed. Case removed from the argument list.

DATE: 5/1/2026

-6-