J-A04020-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WESTLEY RETZLER
Appellant No. 202 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-MD-0001861-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SOLANO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 07, 2017
Pro se Appellant Westley Reztler appeals from the order denying him
in forma pauperis status. We dismiss.
The facts that led to entry of the order are unnecessary for our
disposition.1 The docket reflects a timely appeal. Appellant timely filed a
court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which the court deemed
“illegible and incoherent.” Trial Ct. Op., 8/16/16, at 2.
This Court issued a rule to show cause as to why this appeal should
not be transferred to the trial court as a summary appeal. After considering
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Briefly, this appeal is related to Appellant’s summary appeal of a traffic
citation, in which he was found not guilty. We note that generally there is
no right to counsel in summary cases. Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A.2d
1253, 1256 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied, 877 A.2d 462 (Pa. 2005).
J-A04020-17
Appellant’s response, this Court discharged the show-cause order. Order,
4/1/16. This Court additionally ordered the trial court to, among other
things, provide the notes of testimony to Appellant within thirty days. This
Court then stated, “Appellant shall also be permitted to file an amended
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the
notes of testimony.” Id. On April 14, 2016, the trial court filed the transcript
of the notes of testimony at issue. On April 20, 2016, the trial court
indicated it sent a certified transcript to Appellant. The trial court docket
and record do not reflect whether Appellant ever filed an amended Rule
1925(b) statement with the trial court, but on June 9, 2016 (well beyond the
21-day deadline), Appellant filed a handwritten Rule 1925(b) statement with
this Court.
Apart from the issues presented by Appellant’s late filing of his Rule
1925(b) statement, Appellant’s brief materially inhibits our ability to consider
his appeal. The brief is rambling, replete with ad hominem attacks, and
devoid of legal authority supporting his claim to relief.
[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that
are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief
must support the claims with pertinent discussion,
with references to the record and with citations to
legal authorities. Citations to authorities must
articulate the principles for which they are cited.
This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.
Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability
to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may
-2-
J-A04020-17
dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to
be waived.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011). “While this court is
willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that
appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because [he] lacks legal
training.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.
1996) (citation omitted). We are barred from acting as his counsel and
developing his arguments for him. See Kane, 10 A.3d at 331. The defects
in Appellant’s brief are so substantial in inhibiting our review that we hereby
dismiss.2
Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
2
This Court, in an unrelated case, previously quashed Appellant’s appeal
based on deficiencies in his pro se appellate brief. See Commonwealth v.
Retzler, 3083 EDA 2011, at 3 (Pa. Super., Dec. 11, 2012) (unpublished
memorandum decision); see also Commonwealth v. Retzler, 2543 EDA
2014, at 3 n.1 (Pa. Super., Nov. 16, 2015) (unpublished memorandum
decision) (observing handwritten brief was substantially illegible and
unintelligible); Commonwealth v. Retzler, 479 EDA 2012, at 1 (Pa.
Super., July 18, 2013) (unpublished memorandum decision) (acknowledging
Appellant’s handwritten brief was “lacking in multiple critical respects”).
-3-
J-A04020-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/7/2017
-4-