J-S70021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: ALTON D. BROWN :
:
:
:
:
: No. 741 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered April 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-MD-0001812-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 24, 2018
Appellant, Alton D. Brown, appeals pro se from the April 3, 2017 order
denying his petition for review. We affirm.
The record reveals that on December 12, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se
petition for review alleging that he had filed a private criminal complaint on
October 13, 2015, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania had failed to
respond. Appellant also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) during the litigation of his petition for review in the trial court. On
April 3, 2017, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition for review and
J-S70021-17
dismissed Appellant’s private criminal complaint as frivolous.1 The trial court
also denied Appellant’s petition for IFP status.
On May 3, 2017, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and an
application to proceed IFP on appeal. On May 5, 2017, the trial court
granted Appellant’s application to proceed IFP on appeal and directed
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On May 22, 2017, Appellant timely filed his
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement with the Dauphin County Clerk of Courts, and it
was entered on the trial court docket. On that same day, Appellant also filed
a motion for an extension of time in which to serve the trial judge with a
copy of the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, as Appellant alleged he did not
have sufficient funds to cover the cost of postage.2 On May 25, 2017, the
trial court granted Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to provide the
trial judge a copy of the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. However, despite the
____________________________________________
1 We point out that due to the sheer number of filings by Appellant in the
courts of this Commonwealth, it is a daunting and time-consuming task to
track the frivolous, duplicative, and voluminous litigation he creates. See
Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514, 515 (Pa. 2013) (wherein our Supreme Court
labeled Appellant “a frequent filer of frivolous litigation in the Commonwealth
and federal courts.”).
2 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) requires an appellant to “file of record in the trial court
and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors complained of on
appeal[.]” While Appellant timely filed his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, he
sought an extension of time in which to serve the trial court judge with a
copy of the statement.
-2-
J-S70021-17
extension of time, Appellant never served the trial judge with a copy of his
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
On June 19, 2017, the trial court filed a memorandum addressing
Appellant’s appeal. The trial court stated as follows:
It is well-established that “Appellant’s concise statement
must properly specify the error to be addressed on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011),
appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (citation
omitted). “The Rule 1925(b) statement must be specific enough
for the trial court to identify and address the issues an appellant
wishes to raise on appeal.” Id. Further, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court may find a waiver where a concise statement is
too vague. Id. “When a court has to guess what issues an
appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful
review.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.
Super. 2001) (citation omitted). A Concise Statement which is
too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on
appeal is the functional equivalent of a no Concise Statement at
all. Id. at 686-87.
In the instant matter, pro se Appellant has raised a
boilerplate claim that fails to identify any specific issues on
appeal. Instead, the Appellant merely asserts that this Court
erred in finding that his petition for review is frivolous and that
as a result of prior rulings, this Court has a bias/prejudice
against the Appellant. Because Appellant gave a boilerplate claim
that failed to identify any specific issues on appeal, Appellant has
waived any issues he may have had on appeal in this matter by
failing to identify any specific issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4); Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A. 3d 410, 415 (Pa.
Super. 2011).
Memorandum Statement In Lieu Of Opinion: Supplement To Record,
6/19/17, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).
After review, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion. In his
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Appellant baldly alleged trial court error, but
-3-
J-S70021-17
he failed to specify what error the court committed or how the court erred.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement is “too vague to allow
the court to identify the issues raised on appeal [and] is the functional
equivalent of no concise statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24
A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011). Therefore, Appellant has failed to
preserve any issues for this Court to review. Having no issues to review, we
affirm the trial court’s order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/24/2018
-4-