J-S29021-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVID EUGENE NARAD
Appellant No. 1330 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 9, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0004077-2008
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MAY 20, 2015
Appellant, David Eugene Narad, appeals pro se1 from the July 9, 2014
order, dismissing his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we
dismiss this appeal.
Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may … dismiss an
appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Although this was Appellant’s first PCRA petition and the PCRA court
appointed counsel, counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), and their progeny.
J-S29021-15
1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa.
2011). Further, while this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, “pro
se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212.
In this case, Appellant’s brief is woefully deficient. At the outset, we
note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a copy of the order in question, a
separate statement of the case, a statement of the questions presented, a
summary of the argument, or a conclusion stating the relief sought, all of
which are required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), 2116, 2117, 2118. We further estimate that Appellant’s
argument consists of approximately 200 handwritten pages, containing
various reproductions of portions of the record, with very few citations to
legal authority throughout the same, making it extremely difficult for this
Court to discern the arguments Appellant wishes to raise on appeal. We
further note that Rule 2135 requires a party to file a certificate of compliance
to show that the brief complies with the 14,000 word limit for opening briefs,
when said brief exceeds 30 pages. Id. at 2135(a)(1). Appellant has not
included such a certificate.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Appellant’s brief
are substantial and preclude this Court from engaging in meaningful
appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant
to Rule 2101, and dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-2-
J-S29021-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/20/2015
-3-