J-S65032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BROOKE A. KEEFER,
Appellant No. 261 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 5, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-56-SA-0000083-2015
CP-56-SA-0000084-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
Appellant, Brooke A. Keefer, appeals pro se1 from the judgment of
sentence imposed on February 5, 2016, following his nonjury conviction of
two summary offenses, disorderly conduct2 and public drunkenness,3 arising
out of two separate incidents. For the reasons discuss below, we dismiss
this appeal.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Appellant chose to represent himself throughout the proceedings in the
trial court.
2
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5503(a)(3).
3
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505.
J-S65032-16
On July 1, 2015, Appellant summoned the Somerset Borough police,
claiming that his girlfriend and his neighbor assaulted him. (See Trial Court
Opinion, 5/06/15 at 1-2). After determining that there was no validity to
Appellant’s claim, the police transported him to a hospital for a mental
health evaluation, based upon his behavior during the investigation. (See
id. at 2). Appellant behaved in a “loud and disruptive” manner in the
emergency room, causing the police to issue a citation for disorderly
conduct. (Id. at 2-3).
On July 3, 2015, the Somerset Borough police responded to a
complaint that Appellant had threatened people. (See id. at 3). The police
observed Appellant cursing and threatening people on the street, while
carrying a baseball bat. (See id.). Appellant was “staggering and
stumbling,” smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and slurred his speech.
(See id.). The police arrested him for public drunkenness. (Id. at 4).
On September 17, 2015, the magisterial district judge found Appellant
guilty of disorderly conduct and, on October 7, 2015, found him guilty of
public drunkenness. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a de novo summary
appeal. The trial court held a consolidated hearing on February 5, 2016, and
found Appellant guilty. It immediately sentenced Appellant to pay an
aggregate fine of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, the costs of
prosecution, the costs of the appeal, and an aggregate sum of sixty-one
dollars in fees. The instant timely appeal followed.
-2-
J-S65032-16
On February 19, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Appellant did not file his concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal until March 30, 2016. On May 6, 2016, the trial court issued an
opinion, stating that it believed Appellant had waived all issues on appeal
because of his failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Trial Ct.
Op., at 4); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Appellant’s “briefs” in this matter consist of two separate packets of
paper. The first, filed in this Court on June 2, 2016, includes a page and a
half letter complaining of rampant civil rights violations in Somerset County,
which does include a partial description of the events of July 1, 2015, that
gave rise to the charge of disorderly conduct. (See Appellant’s Brief 1,
6/02/16, at unnumbered pages 1-2). It then details Appellant’s contention
that beginning in 1977 and continuing until the present, he has been the
victim of a plot by Somerset County officials. (See id. at unnumbered pages
3-12). Appellant includes his version of the events that gave rise to the
instant charges. (See id. at unnumbered pages 10-12). He has attached to
that a copy of an April 6, 2016 letter from the Office of the Attorney General,
and the transcript of the trial court proceedings in the instant matter.
The second packet, filed in this Court on July 11, 2016, consists of an
eleven-page letter again detailing an alleged decades-long conspiracy to
-3-
J-S65032-16
harm Appellant and his family, waged by various officials from Somerset
County. (See Appellant’s Brief 2, 7/11/16, at unnumbered pages 1-11).
Again, Appellant does include his version of the events on July 3 and 5,
2015. (See id. at unnumbered pages 9-11).
Appellant’s “briefs” utterly fail to comply with our appellate rules.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111:
(a) General rule.─The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following
matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following
order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to
challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions
(b) and (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court
pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no order
requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
-4-
J-S65032-16
Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 provides:
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many
parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the
head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.
(b) Citations of authorities. Citations of authorities in briefs
shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 governing citations of
authorities.
(c) Reference to record. If reference is made to the pleadings,
evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter
appearing in the record, the argument must set forth, in
immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a
reference to the place in the record where the matter referred to
appears (see Pa.R.A.P. 2132).
(d) Synopsis of evidence. When the finding of, or the refusal
to find, a fact is argued, the argument must contain a synopsis
of all the evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in
the record where the evidence may be found.
(e) Statement of place of raising or preservation of issues.
Where under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable on
appeal unless raised or preserved below, the argument must set
forth, in immediate connection therewith or in a footnote
thereto, either a specific cross-reference to the page or pages of
the statement of the case which set forth the information
relating thereto as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), or
substantially the same information.
(f) Discretionary aspects of sentence. An appellant who
challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal
matter shall 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. The
statement shall immediately precede the argument on the merits
with respect to the discretionary aspects of the sentence.
-5-
J-S65032-16
Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
In this case, Appellant has failed to comply with the mandates of Rules
2111 and 2119. “When issues are not properly raised and developed in
briefs, and when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues
for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v.
Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted).
Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant. 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.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 918 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant’s “briefs” do not contain any argument, a statement of
the questions involved, or any citation to legal authority as required by
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2111 and 2119. Thus, the
defects in Appellant’s brief are significant and substantially encumber our
appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other
matter may be quashed or dismissed.”). Accordingly, because Appellant’s
briefs are defective to the point that they constitute a violation of Pa.R.A.P.
-6-
J-S65032-16
2101, we dismiss the appeal.4 See Sanford, supra at 150; see also
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2016
____________________________________________
4
Moreover, even if we did not dismiss the appeal based upon Appellant’s
deficient “briefs”, we would still find all of his issues waived because of his
failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v.
Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 776 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Butler, 812
A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 2002).
-7-