who are in a juvenile facility as of their 20th birthday: and (2) Appellant was a state prisoner on that date (and, indeed, he remains a state prisoner). ” Id. at 1155. 4 . We note Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in improperly admitting into evidence the testimony of Brian Swoyer, a youth development counselor at South Mountain Secured Treatment Unit, regarding particular fantasies expressed by Appellant. Appellant’s Brief at 27-29. However, Appellant concedes that this specific issue was not raised in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant’s Brief at 28 n. 24. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that any argument regarding Mr. Swoyer’s testimony is waived for purposes of appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (1998) (<HOLDING>). See also Commonwealth v. Oliver, 946 A.2d
holding that issues   not explicitly raised in the statement of questions involved are  waived holding that issue not raised in a statement filed pursuant to parap 1925b is waived for purposes of appeal holding any issues not raised in a rule 1925b statement will be deemed waived holding that in order to preserve their claims for appellate review appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to pa rap 1925b any issues not raised in a parap 1925b statement will be deemed waived holding that where a trial court directs a defendant to file a concise statement pursuant to parap 1925 any issues not raised in that statement shall be waived