J-S54042-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL ALLEN BAILEY :
:
Appellant : No. 513 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 9, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-25-CR-0003243-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
Michael Allen Bailey (Appellant) appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence imposed by the trial court after a jury convicted him of burglary,
criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking.1 We affirm.
Appellant’s convictions arise from a residential burglary in Millcreek
Township, Pennsylvania. Affidavit of Probable Cause, 8/25/16, at 1. A
caretaker, upon arriving at the residence, saw Appellant through a front
window. Id. When Appellant exited the rear of the residence, the caretaker
told Appellant she was calling the police. Id. Appellant fled, but the police
subsequently apprehended him. Id. Upon further investigation, the
Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above crimes.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(2), 3503(a)(1), and 3921(a).
J-S54042-18
The trial court presided over Appellant’s four-day jury trial in February
of 2018, after which the jury returned its guilty verdicts. On March 9, 2018,
the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 3 to 22 years of
incarceration.2 The trial court had the benefit of two pre-sentence reports,
and heard from both parties before imposing Appellant’s standard range
sentence. Appellant filed this timely appeal.
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant has appeared pro se throughout
this case. At trial, the court appointed standby counsel, “who had formerly
represented Appellant and who was familiar with his case.” Trial Court
Opinion, 5/25/18, at 3 n.3. Thereafter, Appellant engaged in a pro se colloquy
for purposes of this appeal. Id.
The trial court and Appellant have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The
trial court described Appellant’s issues as “indecipherable” and found that
Appellant waived “all appellate issues due to his vague, verbose, and
voluminous Concise Statement.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/25/18, at 4-5. In
concluding that Appellant’s issues lacked merit, the trial court additionally took
“the proverbial stab at interpreting [Appellant’s] claims.” Id. at 5. We are
not so inclined.
Appellant presents this Court with 54 issues. See Appellant’s Brief at
21-29. In addition, his brief is rife with rambling discourse and nonsensical
____________________________________________
2 The trial court sentenced Appellant to 30-240 months for burglary, a
concurrent 16 to 120 months for criminal trespass, and 6 to 24 months for
theft by unlawful taking.
-2-
J-S54042-18
invectives, and his arguments – to the extent we can discern them – are
devoid of any coherence from which to conduct meaningful review.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (It is an
appellant’s obligation to sufficiently develop arguments in his brief by applying
the relevant law to the facts of the case, persuade this Court that there were
errors below, and convince us relief is due because of those errors.).
Moreover, Appellant’s pro se status “does not entitle him to any advantage
due to his lack of legal training [and] a layperson choosing to represent himself
in a legal proceeding to a reasonable extent assumes the risk that his lack of
legal training will place him at a disadvantage. Commonwealth v. Ray, 134
A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/12/2018
-3-