responds that Appellant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of burglary and robbery are waived because he failed to include them in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. It maintains that the only challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence set forth in Appellant’s 1925(b) statement involved his first degree murder conviction. The record supports the Commonwealth’s contention in this regard. Because Appellant did not include in his 1925(b) statement challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of robbery and burglary, these claims are waived on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 895, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998)) (<HOLDING>); see also Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 588 Pa.
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 holding that issue not raised in a statement filed pursuant to parap 1925b is waived for purposes of appeal 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 any issues not raised in a rule 1925b statement will be deemed waived holding under parap 302a issue not raised until after summary judgment was granted and then only in a statement of matters complained of on appeal was waived for purposes of appeal