J-S10020-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
HEATHER HOFFMAN, :
:
Appellant : No. 3271 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 26, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-15-CR-0002914-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2018
Appellant, Heather Hoffman, appeals pro se from the order entered on
September 26, 2017 denying her first petition filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546. We dismiss the appeal.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. On May 14, 2014, police responded to a call from the emergency
room at Brandywine Hospital reporting that Appellant was combative with
the staff. More specifically,
[Appellant] faked a seizure after medical personnel refused to
provide her with Percocet[, an opioid painkiller]. During the
incident, Appellant threw a clipboard at a nurse, causing the
nurse to suffer a minor eye injury and creating a commotion that
disrupted the operation of the emergency room.
See Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 2016 WL 7176962, at *1 (Pa. Super.
2016) (unpublished memorandum). A jury convicted Appellant of simple
J-S10020-18
assault on April 8, 2015. Thereafter, the trial court also found Appellant
guilty of two summary offenses, disorderly conduct and harassment. On
July 7, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 48 hours to 23 months of
incarceration. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on July 7,
2015. See id. Appellant did not appeal that determination.
On December 27, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The
PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant. On August 8, 2017,
PCRA counsel moved to withdraw as counsel under Commonwealth v.
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d
213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On September 14, 2017, the PCRA court
gave Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant responded pro se on September
22, 2017. On September 26, 2017, the PCRA court entered an order
denying Appellant’s PCRA petition and granting appointed counsel’s request
to withdraw. This timely appeal resulted.1
Because of the substantial defects in Appellant’s pro se appellate brief,
we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s brief consists of a two-page
____________________________________________
1 Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 9, 2017. On October
11, 2017, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
complied timely on October 16, 2017. On October 19, 2017, the PCRA court
filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) that relied upon its
September 14, 2017 Rule 907 notice and September 26, 2017 order as its
rationale for denying PCRA relief.
-2-
J-S10020-18
stream-of-conscious recitation of her version of events in the underlying
criminal prosecution. She did not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) regarding
the contents of her brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (The brief of the appellant
shall consist of 12 separately and distinctly entitled sections). Appellant also
failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b) and (d) by failing to affix the PCRA
court’s opinions and Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) concise statement to her
appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b) and (d). Most importantly, Appellant
does not provide citation to relevant authority and does not reference the
record in advancing her appellate arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b) and
(c). “This Court possesses discretionary authority to quash, dismiss or deny
allowance of appeal based upon the substantial defects of [an] appellant's
brief.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1993),
citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs [] shall conform in all material respects with
the requirements of [the appellate] rules as nearly as the circumstances of
the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, 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.”).
Moreover,
a pro se litigant[’s status] does not entitle [her] to any
advantage due to [her] lack of legal training. Further, a
layperson choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding to
a reasonable extent assumes the risk that [her] lack of legal
training will place [her] at a disadvantage. Accordingly,
a pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
-3-
J-S10020-18
Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114–1115 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Here, Appellant’s pro se brief is so defective as to preclude meaningful
appellate review. As such, we dismiss the appeal.
Finally, after filing her appeal, Appellant filed two pro se applications
for relief with this Court. On February 16, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se
application for relief requesting we vacate her sentences and award her
PCRA relief. On March 26, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se application for relief
asking us to incorporate her half-brother’s court records into her current
appeal. Because we have dismissed Appellant’s appeal, we deny her
applications for relief.
Appeal dismissed. Motion to Grant Appellant’s PCRA Appeal denied.
Motion to Join Record of Appeal denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/30/18
-4-
J-S10020-18
-5-
Com. v. Hoffman, H.
Combined Opinion