Com. v. Brown, N. ( 2017 )

J-S51022-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
NOEL BROWN,
Appellant No. 649 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 3, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000258-2016
BEFORE: BOWES and SHOGAN, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2017
Appellant, Noel Brown, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence
entered on February 3, 2017, in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas.
We affirm.
The record reveals that on June 29, 2016, A.C., the fifteen-year-old
victim in this case, was reported as a runaway. Affidavit of Probable Cause,
7/7/16, at 1. A.C. had answered an online advertisement seeking escorts
and strippers. Id. On that day, A.C. left her mother’s house with Appellant.
Id. By tracking A.C.’s cellular telephone, Pennsylvania State Police were
able to locate A.C. at a local motel. Id. When the police arrived, they
noticed that A.C. appeared intoxicated; A.C. stated that Appellant had given
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S51022-17
her vodka. Id. The troopers transported A.C. to the State Police barracks
and questioned her regarding the events of the prior evening. Id. A.C. told
the troopers that she had answered an online advertisement for escorts, and
Appellant picked her up and drove her to the motel. Id. At the motel,
Appellant provided A.C. with liquor, and A.C. fell asleep. Id. Police
discovered that after A.C. fell asleep, Appellant undressed A.C., exposed her
breasts, took a photograph of the minor’s breasts, and placed the
photograph online in an effort to utilize A.C. as a prostitute. Id. Police also
recovered a document signed by A.C. wherein she agreed to work for
Appellant, and Appellant would act as her pimp. Id.
Police arrested Appellant and charged him with numerous crimes in
connection with the aforementioned events. At the preliminary hearing
before a magisterial district judge, there was a colloquy consistent with
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998),1 and a thorough
discussion of the factors outlined in Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2) concerning pro
se representation. N.T., 7/18/16, at 8.2 At the subsequent hearing on
____________________________________________
1 In Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998), the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania held that when a defendant wishes to waive counsel,
an on-the-record determination should be made that said waiver is knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary.
2 Compare Commonwealth v. Payson, 723 A.2d 695, 704 (Pa. Super.
1999) (where this Court concluded that a proper waiver of counsel did not
occur when the defendant signed a waiver-of-counsel form specifically
indicating that the waiver was effective only as to the proceeding before the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S51022-17
pretrial motions, Appellant informed the trial court that he remained
steadfast in his desire to represent himself. N.T., 10/3/16, at 4. The trial
court questioned Appellant, urged him to retain counsel, and informed
Appellant that the court would appoint counsel. Id. Appellant reiterated
that he would not accept counsel and would represent himself. Id. The trial
court ultimately permitted Appellant to proceed pro se, but the trial court
appointed standby counsel. Id. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found
guilty of interference with custody of children,3 dissemination of photos of
child sex acts, corruption of minors, furnishing liquor to minors, and
trafficking in minors.
On February 3, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 180 to 384 months of incarceration. Appellant filed post-
sentence motions that were denied, and on February 9, 2017, Appellant filed
a timely appeal. Throughout the proceedings Appellant remained pro se.
On February 14, 2017, the trial court directed Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). On March 10, 2017, Appellant filed what he labeled a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement. This statement is a hand-written, nearly illegible
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
district justice). Here, Appellant waived counsel before the magisterial
district judge and before the trial court judge.
3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2904(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii),
18 Pa.C.S. § 3011(b), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6310.1(a), respectively.
-3-
J-S51022-17
diatribe of more than thirty claims of error. On April 17, 2017, the trial
court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
On appeal, Appellant purports to raise issues of ineffective assistance
of counsel, improper venue, an unlawful search, the opinion of the Sexual
Offenders Assessment Board, obstruction of justice, due process, discovery,
pretrial motions, prior bad acts evidence, cruel and unusual punishment,
sufficiency of the evidence, and a deprivation of his rights. Appellant’s Brief
at unnumbered 3-18. After review, we are constrained to conclude that
none of the issues is supported by cogent legal argument or citation to
relevant authority; rather, Appellant’s argument is a nonsensical invective
on the proceedings in the trial court.
“Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.”
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005). “To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding
must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal
training will be his undoing.” Id. (citation omitted). Due to the
overwhelming deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we conclude that Appellant
has waived his issues on appeal.4 Pa.R.A.P. 2119; see also
____________________________________________
4 Assuming for the sake of argument that Appellant’s brief was capable of
being distilled into lucid claims of error, we would affirm on the basis of the
trial court’s opinion wherein the trial court dutifully pared down Appellant’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S51022-17
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 54 A.3d 908, 915 (Pa. Super. 2012) (an
appellant’s failure to develop an argument or cite authority in support of his
issue results in waiver of the claim). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/23/2017
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
convoluted Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and argument into twelve issues.
See Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/17.
-5-