Com. v. Benckini, G. ( 2019 )

J -S26008-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
GENE BENCKINI
Appellant : No. 2041 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 30, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001470-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED JULY 26, 2019
Gene Benckini appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered in
the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. Because of substantial defects in
his brief, we dismiss the appeal.
Due to our resolution of this appeal, a detailed recitation of the facts
and procedural history is unnecessary. Briefly, in 2016, Benckini entered two
different Walmart stores and attempted to purchase a firearm. As part of the
firearm purchase, Benckini was required to complete a background check and
verify that he had not been previously convicted of a felony. At each store,
Benckini verified he did not have a felony conviction. Because this information
was false, Benckini's request to purchase a firearm was denied. Additionally,
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J -S26008-19
after authorities were alerted concerning these attempted purchases, Benckini
was arrested and charged.
Following a jury trial, Benckini was convicted of two counts of attempting
to purchase a firearm using false written statements and two counts of
unsworn falsifications to authorities. The court sentenced him in the mitigated
range to 1 to 2 years' imprisonment, followed by 1 year probation. This appeal
follows.
Benckini's appellate brief suffers from substantial flaws. The
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure provide the following guidelines
regarding the content of an appellant's brief:
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 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.
(6) Summary of the argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to
challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence, if
applicable.
-2
J -S26008-19
(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)(1)-(11).
"Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects
with the requirements of these rules ... if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other
matter may be quashed or dismissed." Pa.R.A.P. 2101. "The argument portion
of an appellate brief must be developed with a pertinent discussion of the
point which includes citations to the relevant authority." Commonwealth v.
Genovese, 675 A.2d 331, 334 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations omitted). This
Court is unable to review an appellant's claims where he fails to include
relevant citations to authority or legal discussion in his brief. See
Commonwealth v. Russell, 665 A.2d 1239, 1246 (Pa. Super. 1995).
Further, "[a]lthough 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)
(citation omitted). "To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself
-3
J -S26008-19
in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing." Id. (citation omitted).
Here, Benckini's brief substantially fails to conform to the basic
requirements of appellate advocacy. Benckini fails to include the required
headings, statements of jurisdiction, scope or standard of review, or any
questions for our review. His brief wholly lacks a cogent argument, much less
citations to legal cases or the certified record.
These substantial defects in Benckini's brief prevent this Court from
conducting any meaningful review of his claims. While we are sensitive to the
fact that Benckini has chosen to proceed pro se, we decline to become his
counsel. As his noncompliant brief deprives us of the ability to review his
claim, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 7/26/19
-4