plain error in Pennsylvania

2020See Commonwealth v. Hays, 218 A.3d 1260 , 1267 (Pa. 2019) (Saylor, C.J., concurring) (“the Court has abrogated the plain error [J-69-2019] - 21 doctrine in Pennsylvania”) (citing Commonwealth v. Clair, 326 A.2d 272, 274 (Pa. 1974)).

2019For example, the Court has abrogated the plain error doctrine in Pennsylvania, see Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 423 , 326 A.2d 272, 274 (1974), although that construct continues to prevail in many other courts.

2025“Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the eviden[ce] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award.” Id.

2021“Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the eviden[ce] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award.” Id. ____________________________________________ only the claims Appellant has addressed in the argument section of his brief.

2023Sutch, 142 A.3d at 70 (citations and quotation marks omitted)). - 11 - J-A06024-23 The Child Custody Act provides that a court may impose an award of “counsel fees and costs” after finding a party in contempt of a custody order. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(g)(1)(v).

2019Sutch v. Roxborough Mem’l Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 70 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2016See Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 422 , 16 A.3d 484, 491 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), for the proposition that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [statement of matters complained of on appeal] will be deemed waived” (emphasis adjusted)).

2016See Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 422 , 16 A.3d 484, 491 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), for the proposition that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [statement of matters complained of on appeal] will be deemed waived” (emphasis adjusted)).

2016See Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 422 , 16 A.3d 484, 491 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), for the proposition that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [statement of matters complained of on appeal] will be deemed waived” (emphasis adjusted)).

2016See Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 422 , 16 A.3d 484, 491 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), for the proposition that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [statement of matters complained of on appeal] will be deemed waived” (emphasis adjusted)).

2025Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 , 1198–1199 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2022“Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the [evidence] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award.” Id. at 1198-99 .

2013In the seminal case of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust, Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974), our Supreme Court indicated that the plain error doctrine would no longer be applicable, requiring parties to raise issues in the trial court.

2013In the seminal case of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust, Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974), our Supreme Court indicated that the plain error doctrine would no longer be applicable, requiring parties to raise issues in the trial court.

2026Pelissero v. Seraly, 247 A.3d 433, 437 (Pa. Super. 2021) (internal citations and brackets omitted).

2025See, e.g., In re R.W., 855 A.2d 107, 109 (Pa. Super. 2004); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 510 A.2d 1389 , 1391 (Pa. Super. 1986); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Przybyla, 722 A.2d 183, 184 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Given that the trial court had proper authority to both sua sponte reject the guilty plea agreement and to dismiss the … charges as de minimis infractions, we now consider the Commonwealth’s assertion that the trial court’s action in so doing constituted an abuse of discretion.”) (some altered formatting). -9- J-S15038-25 The application of an abuse of discretion standard of review to Section 312

2025See, e.g., In re R.W., 855 A.2d 107, 109 (Pa. Super. 2004); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 510 A.2d 1389 , 1391 (Pa. Super. 1986); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Przybyla, 722 A.2d 183, 184 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Given that the trial court had proper authority to both sua sponte reject the guilty plea agreement and to dismiss the … charges as de minimis infractions, we now consider the Commonwealth’s assertion that the trial court’s action in so doing constituted an abuse of discretion.”) (some altered formatting). -9- J-S15038-25 The application of an abuse of discretion standard of review to Section 312

2025See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Boyer, 891 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Pa. 2006) (“Prevailing jurisprudence … no longer recognizes the plain error doctrine.

2023Instantly, we conclude the “fact that each [of Appellant’s seven] notice[s] of appeal listed all [seven] docket numbers does not invalidate his notices of appeal[.]” Johnson, 236 A.3d at 1148. -8- J-S04009-23 Appellant presents ten issues for our review: A. Whether the PCRA court made a plain error, an error of law, by its conclusions in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, dated May 10, 2022[, to the extent it stated] that “In any event, the evidence of a knife found on Mr. Stowe’s body was not material to any issues in the case[”;] and [“]since [Appellant] failed to proffer evidence to show that t

2023See id. at 756 .

2023See id. at 756 .

2022Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the evidentiary [record] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award. ____________________________________________ 12We offer no opinion as to whether Appellant should be granted the additional requested commission. - 29 - J-A26038-21 Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751, 760 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

2022See Commonwealth v. Veon, 150 A.3d 435 , 456 n.33 (Pa. 2016) (“There are appealing arguments for applying the plain error doctrine, and a considerable number of jurisdictions have done so, but we emphatically are not among them.”) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. Hays, 218 A.3d 1260 , 1267 - 12 - J-A26033-21 (Pa. 2019) (Chief Justice Saylor, concurring) (noting the “plain error doctrine” was not available to secure judicial review of appellant’s waived claim, and in Chief Justice’s view “the Court should not proceed to weaken the otherwise prevailing practice on the strength of advocacy . . .

2021Id. at 705 (holding that the sentencing court erred in ordering restitution under § 1106(a) where there was no nexus between financial loss and the defendant’s conviction); Commonwealth v. Zrncic, 167 A.3d 149, 152-53 (Pa.Super. 2017) (same).

2017Estate of McClatchy, 424 A.2d 1227, 1230 (Pa. 1981). - 17 - J-S81008-16 court’s sentence with regard to Section 9721(b) factors may, as a practical matter, dictate a greater degree of deference from a reviewing court[.]” Id at 995, n.2.

2016P. 52(b) (providing for consideration of “[a] plain error that affects substantial rights” even though the error “was not brought to the court’s attention”); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S. Ct. 2868, 2877 (1976) (“The (continued…) This Court, of course, has moved far away from such prudential roots in the direction of strict enforcement of waiver, for example, via its abrogation of the plain error doctrine and curtailment of relaxed waiver in capital litigation.2 In decisional law referenced by the majority, the Court also converted what, on its face, appeared to be a discretiona

2016P. 52(b) (providing for consideration of “[a] plain error that affects substantial rights” even though the error “was not brought to the court’s attention”); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 , 96 S. Ct. 2868, 2877 (1976) (“The (continued…) This Court, of course, has moved far away from such prudential roots in the direction of strict enforcement of waiver, for example, via its abrogation of the plain error doctrine and curtailment of relaxed waiver in capital litigation.2 In decisional law referenced by the majority, the Court also converted what, on its face, appeared to be a discretiona

2014Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892, 900 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

2010See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ford, 570 Pa. 378 , 809 A.2d 325 (2002) (plurality). .

2010See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ford, 570 Pa. 378 , 809 A.2d 325 (2002) (plurality). .

2006See Grant, 572 Pa. at 67 , 813 A.2d at 738 .

2006See Grant, 572 Pa. at 67 , 813 A.2d at 738 .