Com. v. Kendall, J. ( 2018 )

J-A07045-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
JAMES WALLACE KENDALL :
: No. 832 MDA 2017
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001505-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 16, 2018
Appellant, James Wallace Kendall, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County following
his conviction on the charges of simple assault, reckless endangerment of
another person, and criminal mischief.1 After a careful review, we quash this
appeal due to Appellant’s failure to file a brief that conforms in any meaningful
manner to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant was
convicted on the aforementioned charges, and on May 3, 2017, the trial court
sentenced him to an aggregate of six months to twenty-three months in
prison, to be followed by ninety days of probation. Appellant filed a timely
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701, 2705, and 3304, respectively.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A07045-18
pro se appeal on May 16, 2017, and on June 5, 2017, Appellant filed in this
Court a request for the assistance of counsel.
By order entered on June 6, 2017, pursuant to Commonwealth v.
Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1988), this Court remanded for the trial
court to hold a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to proceed pro
se or with the appointment of counsel. On June 14, 2017, after conducting
an on-the-record colloquy, the trial court filed an order indicating: “It is hereby
found that [Appellant] is in need of the assistance of counsel. The Court
hereby appoints the Franklin County Public Defender’s Office to represent the
interests of [Appellant] on appeal.” Trial Court Order, filed 6/14/17.
On August 17, 2017, Appellant filed in this Court a pro se motion in
which he objected to the appointment of counsel from the Franklin County
Public Defender’s Office on the basis there was a “direct conflict of interest.”
Accordingly, by order entered on October 2, 2017, this Court directed the trial
court to hold a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to proceed pro
se, with current counsel, or, if appropriate, with new appointed counsel. See
Commonwealth v. McAleer, 561 Pa. 129, 748 A.2d 670, 673 (2000) (noting
right to counsel of one’s own choice is not absolute, but must be weighed
against state’s interest in swift and efficient administration of criminal justice).
We further directed that, if Appellant wished to proceed pro se, the trial court
was to determine whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary pursuant to Grazier, supra.
-2-
J-A07045-18
Following a hearing, by order entered on October 25, 2017, the trial
court concluded that “[Appellant] wishes to proceed without representation
from court appointed counsel and that said decision is knowing, intelligent and
voluntary pursuant to the requirements of [Grazier, supra], [thus] it is
hereby ordered that Chief Public Defender Ian Brink is relieved of his obligation
to represent [Appellant].” Trial Court Order, filed 10/25/17. Thereafter,
Appellant filed in this Court a pro se appellate brief.
As a prefatory matter, although this Court is willing to
construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant.
Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n. 1 (1993).
Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural
rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court. Id. This Court
may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform
with the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa.Super. 2003).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines
regarding the required content of an appellate brief as follows:
Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant
(a) General Rule.--The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following
matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following
order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
-3-
J-A07045-18
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to
challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if
applicable.
(8) Argument for Appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief
sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in
Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial
court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that
no order requiring a statement of errors complained
of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was
entered.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (bold in original). Further, Pa.R.A.P. 2116 entitled
“Statement of Questions Involved” states:
(a) General rule. The statement of the questions involved must
state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms
and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail.
The statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary question
fairly comprised therein. No question will be considered unless it
is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly
suggested thereby. . . .
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (bold in original). The omission of a statement of the
questions involved is particularly grievous because it defines the specific
issues this Court is asked to review. See Maris, supra.
In the case sub judice, Appellant’s brief falls well below the standard
delineated in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In fact, aside from providing
us with a docketing statement, as well as listing issues on what appears to be
-4-
J-A07045-18
a standard form used for PCRA2 purposes, Appellant has presented this Court
with no issues or arguments for review. Appellant’s failure to provide us with
an appropriate brief has greatly impaired our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review.
While we are not insensitive to the fact Appellant has chosen to proceed
pro se, we decline to act as his counsel. See Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86
A.3d 870, 874 (Pa.Super. 2014). Accordingly, we quash this appeal for
Appellant’s failure to comply in any meaningful manner with the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeal Quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/16/2018
____________________________________________
2 Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-5-