Com. v. Ahmed, M. ( 2018 )

J-A08041-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MUZAFFAR AHMED, :
:
Appellant : No. 2984 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 15, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-SA-0000310-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2018
Muzaffar Ahmed (Appellant) appeals pro se from the August 15, 2017
judgment of sentence imposing a $25 fine and costs after he was found guilty
of a summary traffic offense. The Commonwealth has filed a motion to dismiss
this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.
On April 29, 2017, Officer Jeffrey P. Gallo was on routine patrol in
Chester County when he saw Appellant make a left-hand turn from the right
lane in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3322. Appellant was issued a traffic citation
for this offense. He pled not guilty, and a magisterial district court hearing
was scheduled. Appellant did not appear at the hearing and was found guilty
of this offense in absentia. Appellant timely appealed for a trial de novo in
the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. On August 15, 2017, the
parties appeared for the hearing. The trial court concluded that Appellant’s
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08041-18
failure to appear at the district court was excused because the notice was sent
to an incorrect address. However, crediting the testimony of Officer Gallo, the
trial court found Appellant guilty of the summary offense. See Trial Court
Opinion, 11/8/2017, at 3. This timely-filed appeal followed.1
On appeal, Appellant inartfully challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain his conviction, in addition to asserting several other purported
errors. The Commonwealth argues that this appeal should be dismissed due
to Appellant’s failure to follow numerous Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Motion to Quash Appeal and Deny Oral Argument, 1/11/2018, at
¶¶ 6-12; Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-16 (explaining the deficiencies in
Appellant’s brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2118, and
2119 should result in waiver of all of Appellant’s claims).
“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. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal
citations omitted). Our rules provide that “[b]riefs and reproduced records
____________________________________________
1 The trial court issued notice pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) for Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Instead of filing
the statement in the trial court and sending a copy to the trial judge as
directed, Appellant timely filed his statement with this Court. This Court
forwarded the statement to the trial court, and the trial court prepared an
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
-2-
J-A08041-18
shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as
nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record
of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be …
dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Here, we agree with the Commonwealth that the
defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial and in violation of the rules
referenced by the Commonwealth. Significantly, Appellant’s brief does not
contain either a statement of questions involved which states “concisely the
issues to be resolved” or an argument section “divided into as many parts as
there are questions to be argued.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116, 2119. Thus, we conclude
that this deficiency requires the dismissal of this appeal.
Moreover, even if Appellant’s brief were compliant with the rules, this
Court’s review has been substantially impeded by the failure of Appellant to
request and file a transcript of the de novo hearing in compliance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) (“The appellant shall request any transcript required under
this chapter in the manner and make any necessary payment or deposit
therefor[.]”).
[W]ell-settled Pennsylvania law makes clear an appellate court is
limited to considering only the materials in the certified record
when resolving an issue. Where the appellant has not made the
transcript of the proceedings at issue a part of the certified record,
we have said:
With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of Appellate
Procedure require an appellant to order and pay for any
transcript necessary to permit resolution of the issues raised
on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a)…. When the appellant … fails
-3-
J-A08041-18
to conform to the requirements of Rule 1911, any claims
that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary
transcript or transcripts must be deemed waived for the
purpose of appellate review.
Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443, 456 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal
citations omitted).
Here, there is no indication that Appellant requested the transcript or
that one is available. Yet, on appeal, Appellant contends primarily that the
trial court did not have sufficient evidence to convict him. Such a claim cannot
be reviewed by this Court without a transcript. Accordingly, even if Appellant’s
brief conformed with the rules, we would conclude that he has waived his
issues on appeal for failure to ensure the inclusion of the transcript of the
hearing in the certified record.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/30/18
-4-
J-A08041-18
-5-