J-S39022-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CLIFTON CONNELLY :
:
Appellant : No. 3822 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-SA-0002264-2017
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2020
Appellant, Clifton Connelly, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on October 23, 2017 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County. We dismiss the appeal.
Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows. On July 28, 2017, Appellant
pled guilty in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia to operating a motor vehicle
without the required financial responsibility. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786(d)(1).
In turn, the Municipal Court imposed a fine in the amount of $647.00.
Appellant appealed the case de novo to the court of common pleas. When
Appellant failed to appear for his hearing scheduled for October 23, 2017, the
trial court dismissed Appellant’s summary appeal and entered judgment. This
appeal followed.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39022-20
On appeal, Appellant submitted a one-page statement in support of his
claims. Appellant’s submission includes none of the required components
identified in our appellate rules. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing required
components of appellate briefs). Because Appellant’s filing omits all of the
requisite components of an appellate brief (including, particularly, a discussion
of relevant issues with citation to pertinent authority), we deem it deficient
and we further find that those deficiencies undermine meaningful appellate
review. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal.1 See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(briefs “shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of the
[appellate rules]” and appeals shall be subject to dismissal where defects in
an appellant’s brief are substantial).
Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
1 Even if we could undertake meaningful appellate review, it appears that
Appellant would not be entitled to relief. Appellant argues that his driving
privileges should not have been suspended. However, an attachment to
Appellant’s brief that purports to be prepared by the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation states that Appellant’s driving privileges were restored
effective April 13, 2019. Hence, it does not appear that an effective remedy
could be ordered in this appeal. Moreover, where the trial court dismisses a
summary appeal for failure to appear, our case law holds that the scope of
our review is limited to considering whether the court committed a manifest
abuse of discretion in entering its dismissal order. See Commonwealth v.
Akinsanmi, 55 A.3d 539, 540 (Pa. Super. 2012). Here, however, Appellant’s
only claim appears to be that he was misled by an assistant district attorney
and certain unidentified court officials.
-2-
J-S39022-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/11/2020
-3-