J-A21036-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
KELTON PRILLERMAN, :
:
Appellant :
: No. 2096 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000825-2013
BEFORE: BOWES, OTT and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2014
Appellant, Kelton Prillerman, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered July 18, 2013, following his convictions for driving under
the influence of a controlled substance (DUI), registration card to be signed
and exhibited on demand, and general lighting requirements.1 We affirm.
On November 18, 2012, Appellant was arrested and charged with,
inter alia, the aforementioned offenses.2
bench trial on July 18, 2013. On the day of trial, Appellant appeared pro se
1
75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(d)(2), 1331(b), and 4303(b), respectively.
2
A third summary offense, operating a vehicle without required financial
responsibility, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(f), was dismissed at App
hearing. N.T., 7/18/2013, at 14-16.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A21036-14
and explained to the court that he wished to represent himself as he did not
qualify for the services of a public defender. N.T., 7/18/2013, at 6.
Following a lengthy colloquy on the record by the trial court, Appellant
waived his right to counsel and the case proceeded to trial. Id. at 3-14.
Appellant was convicted of all counts and was sentenced to not less than
seventy-two hours nor more than six months of incarceration at the DUI
charge. Appellant was also sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and an
aggregate fine of $1050, and to complete alcohol highway safety classes.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. By order dated July 23,
2013, Appellant was directed to file a statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days. He failed to do so.
However, on September 12, 2013, Appellant mailed a letter to the trial court
3
letter also appeared to include vague challenges to timely discovery
disclosure, the lack of a jury trial, and an alleged impermissible burden shift
that occurred following trial. Id. The trial court issued a 1925(a) opinion on
October 23, 2013. This appeal followed.
Before
determine whether the claims were properly preserved for our review. The
3
-2-
J-A21036-14
trial court determined that Appellant waived all of his claims by filing his
1925(b) statement late without good cause. Trial Court Opinion,
10/23/2013, at 1.4 We agree.
It is well-
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245,
252 pro se litigant
must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
Id
and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple
bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b)
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494
(Pa. 2011) (internal footnotes omitted). Instantly, Appellant failed to
Moreover, we agree with the trial court that Appellant has also waived
his claims as the result of his failure to identify the issues he sought to raise
on appeal with any degree of specificity in his untimely 1925(b) statement.
4
n that Appellant failed to order the
transcripts necessary to dispose of his claims in violation of Pa.R.A.P.
1911(a). Trial Court Opinion, 10/23/2013, at 2-3. The record reflects that
the Commonwealth ordered the trial transcript and a copy is included in the
certified record; we nonetheless agree with the position of the trial court
dismissal of his appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d).
-3-
J-A21036-14
Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that
a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal which is too vague
to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional
equivalent of no concise statement at all).
been preserved properly, we would have grounds to dismiss this appeal due
omply with Pa.R.A.P. 2116 and 2119. Most
discernible legal argument for our analysis. Rule 2101 grants us the
authority to dismiss an appeal when the defects in a brief are substantial.
The fact that Appellant is pro se does not excuse his complete failure to
comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor does it entitle him to have
this Court advocate on his behalf. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d
1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.
developed in briefs, [and] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm Appell
sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-4-
J-A21036-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/27/2014
-5-