J. S36030/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
ANDREW ANGLE :
:
Appellant : No. 1281 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division No(s): CP-21-CR-0000339-2013
CP-21-CR-0000340-2013
CP-21-CR-0002350-2013
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2016
Appellant, Andrew Angle, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered on February 11, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County following his guilty plea to three counts of Receiving Stolen
Property.1 After careful review, we dismiss the appeal.
A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary to our disposition. In
his counseled appellate Brief, Appellant failed to comply with the
requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable
to conduct meaningful appellate review.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
J.S36030/16
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.
Our review of Appellant’s Brief exposes substantial violations of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Initially, the “Statement of Jurisdiction” fails
to “contain a precise citation to the statutory provision, general rule or other
authority believed to confer on the appellate court jurisdiction to review the
order or other determination” in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 2114.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Next, in the “Scope and Standard of Review” section, Appellant fails to
state the appropriate scope of review and fails to provide citations to any
supporting authority regarding the scope of review. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(3); Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Appellant includes a statement of the questions involved section
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), which is entitled “DETERMINATION IN
QUESTION,” and raises the following issues:
A. Did the Lower Court abuse its discretion in allowing the
testimony of Ms. Evelyn Berkholz as to the monetary value of
certain items of jewelry that she claimed to have been stolen
from her house by the Appellant?
B. Where the Appellant was sentenced to 2 to 14 years in a state
correctional institution for receiving stolen property (F3) and
the Sentencing Guidelines provided for a standard range of 6
to 16 months (aggravated Range 12), was the defense
counsel ineffective in not moving for reconsideration of the
-2-
J.S36030/16
sentence on the grounds of disproportionate sentencing or in
the alternative, did the Lower Court abuse its discretion in
issuing a sentence that was well beyond the Sentencing
Guidelines?
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Appellant’s “Statement of the Case” is only two sentences long, fails to
cite to the record, and fails to include any factual or procedural history as
required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117. Appellant’s Brief at 7.
Appellant does not include a “Summary of Argument” section as
required by Pa.R.A.P. 2118. More importantly, Appellant’s “Argument”
section contains numerous defects and fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
Appellant references evidence from the record numerous times, but only
provides a specific cite to the record two times. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and
(d); Appellant’s Brief at 8-10. Appellant provides two citations to rules of
evidence and one citation to case law but fails to engage in meaningful
discussion or analysis of any authority that he cites. See Pa.R.A.P. 126; see
also 2119(a)-(d); Appellant’s Brief at 8-10.
Lastly, Appellant fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires
Appellant to “set forth in a separate section of the brief a concise statement
of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the
discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Appellant asserts
that the “lower court abused its discretion in issuing a sentence that is well
beyond the sentencing guidelines,” which is a challenge to the discretionary
aspects of the sentence, but fails to include a separate section pursuant to
-3-
J.S36030/16
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777,
779 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that a challenge to the sentencing court’s
imposition of a sentence outside of the sentencing guidelines is a challenge
to the discretionary aspects of the sentence).
These substantial omissions and defects preclude meaningful review.
Accordingly, we suppress Appellant’s Brief and dismiss his appeal. See
Adams, supra at 497-98; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
President Judge Emeritus Stevens joins this Memorandum.
Judge Mundy concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/2016
-4-