Com. v. Williams, T.

J-S15007-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TERON CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 2753 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered October 10, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002033-2002 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TERON C. WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 391 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Entered October 10, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002375-2014

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 15, 2026 Appellant, Teron C. Williams, appeals pro se from the order denying his request to waive certain costs and fines imposed following his admission to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program for driving under the influence at trial court docket CP-39-CR-0002033-2002, and his entry of a ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S15007-26 guilty plea to driving under suspension, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia at trial court docket CP-39-CR-0002375-2014.1 We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows.

On October 1, 2025, Appellant filed a “Motion to Waive Fines and Costs.” Within that motion, [Appellant] alleged that he [was] indigent and unable to afford to continue paying his remaining costs and fines, which, according to him, total[ed] over $2,500[.00]. He further alleged that he [was] disabled and collects Social Security Income benefits and Medicaid, and that he [had] no future prospects for work. [On October 10, 2025, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s motion. This timely appeal followed. 2] Trial Court Opinion, 11/14/25, at 1-2 (footnote added).

Appellant raises the following issue for our consideration.

[Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to waive fines and costs despite evidence of indigency?]

See generally Appellant’s Brief at ¶ 4.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Robert L.

Steinberg. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case for ____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3731(a)(1) and 1543(b)(1); 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(31) and 780-113(a)(32), respectively.

2 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Nevertheless, appellant attached a concise statement to his notice of appeal.

-2- J-S15007-26 the reasons expressed in Judge Steinberg’s November 14, 2025 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm based on Judge Steinberg’s opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach copies of Judge Steinberg’s November 14, 2025 opinion.

Order affirmed.

Date: 6/15/2026

-3-