J-S78006-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FREDERICK A. BOEHM :
:
Appellant : No. 1273 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order August 31, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-SA-0001232-2017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 04, 2018
Appellant, Frederick Boehm, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered on August 31, 2017, following Appellant’s conviction for
the summary offense of disorderly conduct.1 We dismiss this appeal.
On April 19, 2017, Appellant was cited for committing the summary
offense of disorderly conduct and, on May 31, 2017, the magisterial district
judge found Appellant guilty of committing the offense. See Notice of
Appeal, 6/23/17, at 1.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to the court of common pleas
from his summary conviction; however, Appellant failed to appear for his
trial de novo, which occurred on August 31, 2017. See N.T. Trial, 8/31/17,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S78006-17
at 2. As a result, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and entered
judgment “on the judgment of the issuing authority.” Id.; see also
Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(E). The trial court thus found Appellant guilty of
committing the summary offense of disorderly conduct and sentenced
Appellant to pay a fine in the amount of $150.00, plus costs. N.T. Trial,
8/31/17, at 2.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. We now dismiss
this appeal.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth mandatory
briefing requirements for litigants presenting their claims before this Court.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114-2119. Briefs filed with
this Court must include a jurisdictional statement, a statement of the scope
and standard of review, a statement of the questions presented, and a
statement of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Most importantly, briefs
must contain an argument section that develops claims through meaningful
discussion supported by pertinent legal authority and citations to the record.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8); Pa.R.A.P. 2119. We may quash or dismiss an appeal
where an appellant fails to comply with the briefing requirements of our
appellate rules. Pa.R.A.P. 2102; see also Commonwealth v. Adams, 882
A.2d 496, 497-498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Superior Court may quash or dismiss
appeals where non-conforming briefs have been filed). “Although the
Superior Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se
-2-
J-S78006-17
litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.” Id. at
498.
Appellant’s brief contains none of Rule 2111’s required sections and
does not present a discernable claim for this Court to review. See
Appellant’s Brief at 1-3. In failing to provide appellate advocacy on any
assertion of error, Appellant has precluded meaningful review by this Court.
Hence, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/4/2018
-3-
Com. v. Boehm, F.
Combined Opinion