J. S41018/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
WILLIAM VALENTINE :
:
Appellant : No. 2060 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 15, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division No(s): CP-09-CR-0003521-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2016
Appellant, William Valentine, appeals pro se from the Order of May 15,
2015, which denied his Post-Conviction Relief Act (PRCA)1 Petition. After
careful review, we dismiss the appeal.
A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary to our disposition.
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.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J.S41018/16
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: it does not contain a statement of jurisdiction,
an order or other determination in question, a statement of the scope and
standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, a summary of
Appellant’s argument, or a procedural history of the case. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(1)-(4); (6); 2114; 2115; 2116; 2117(a)(1); 2118.
Appellant includes a “Factual History” section but fails to cite to the
record and provide “an appropriate reference in each instance to the place in
the record where the evidence substantiating the fact relied on may be
found.” Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2132; Appellant’s Brief at
1 (unpaginated).
-2-
J.S41018/16
Most importantly, Appellant’s argument, which is under the same
heading as “Factual History,” contains numerous defects and fails to comply
with Pa.R.A.P. 2119. He fails to ensure that the argument is “divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); (c).
Appellant provides some citations to case law but fails to engage in
meaningful discussion or analysis of any authority that he cites. See
2119(a)-(d). The argument consists of unorganized thoughts and no
analysis or discussion of how the cited case law is relevant to the issues
Appellant is attempting to raise.
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.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2016
-3-