J. A06011/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MICHAEL J. ASCENZI, :
:
Appellant : No. 1461 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 22, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-40-SA-0000114-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE ,J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2016
Appellant, Michael J. Ascenzi, appeals pro se from the Judgment of
Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County following
his convictions for Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or
Revoked and Driving with an Unsecured Load.1 After careful review, we
dismiss.
The facts are not relevant to our determination. Appellant’s brief is
insufficient, hard to comprehend, unsupported, and at times illegible.
Appellant failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in
Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable to conduct meaningful
appellate review.
1
75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a); 75 Pa.C.S. § 4903, respectively.
J.A06011/16
Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and this Court may quash or
dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth
v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by
a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to
represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”
Adams, supra at 498 (citation omitted).
Our review of Appellant’s brief exposes substantial violations of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. While Appellant’s Brief does contain various
sections as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), the sections are decidedly
inadequate.
Appellant’s standard and scope of review section pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(3) is entitled “Standard Scope of Review” and fails to state what the
standard of review is, fails to state what the scope of review is, and fails to
provide citations to any supporting authority. Appellant’s Brief at 6. Rather,
Appellant makes sweeping assertions about this Court’s “duty” to “appy the
proper resolution in solving ‘inte aila’ errors of law and securing the
-2-
J.A06011/16
constitutional amendments, or state articees as the same.” Id.
(capitalization omitted; spelling and grammatical errors in original).
Appellant includes a “Statement of Questions Involved” pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 2116, which contains the following two paragraphs, verbatim:
WAS THE NATURE OFFICE DUMONTS ACTIONS TO STALL THE
SERVICE OF SAID CITATIONS A VIOLATION OF THE RULE.
WHERE IN FACT HE WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILAGES, AND THAT THE
DEFENDANT LIVE IN FLORIDA NOW, LADY LACK. ALSO THE
DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE
PICTURES OF SAID METALS AT QUESTION.
THE INTENTION OF THIS OFFICER’S CONDUCT AND BIASNESS
MONTS TO A JUSTIFICATION OF ILL WILL AND PREDJUDICE
TOWARDS THIS WHOLE CASE. HE SHIFTED THINGS AROUND
AS HE TESTIFIED, AND JUDGE GELD USHURED HIM RIGHT ON.
THE BALANCING BEAN WAS IN THE OFFICER’S FAVOR RIGHT
FROM THE START. NO TIER OF FACT COULD PREVAIL ON THESE
TERMS BY THE COURT. THE ONLY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY
WAS OFFICER DUMONT’S. THIS COURT MUST FIND A
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURES AND REVERSE.
Appellant’s Brief at 7 (spelling and grammatical errors in original).
Appellant fails to “state concisely the issues to be resolved” in
compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Appellant avers “violation of the rule”
and “violation of procedures” but fails to cite any rule, any procedures, or
any legal authority to guide appellate review. Appellant’s Brief at 7.
Lastly, Appellant’s “Argument” section fails to comply with the
requirements of Pa.R.A.P 2119. Appellant references evidence from the
record numerous times, but only provides a specific cite to the record one
time. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (d); Appellant’s Brief at 9-13. Appellant
-3-
J.A06011/16
provides general citations to case law and one statute but fails to “direct the
court’s attention to the specific part of the authority on which the party
relies” and fails to engage in meaningful discussion or analysis of any
authority that he cites. Pa.R.A.P. 126; 2119(a)-(d). The section consists of
unorganized thoughts, incomplete citations to the record, and no analysis or
discussion of how the cited case law is relevant to the issues Appellant is
attempting to raise.
These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review.2
Accordingly, we suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss his appeal. See
Adams, supra at 497-98; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/26/2016
2
The court notes that the Appellant failed to appear for oral argument,
which also precluded this Court from reviewing the appeal in a meaningful
way.
-4-