Com. v. Williams, S. ( 2014 )

J-S48013-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee, :
:
v. :
:
SAMUEL D. WILLIAMS, :
:
Appellant : No. 1606 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order entered August 21, 2013,
Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0000545-2002
BEFORE: DONOHUE, JENKINS and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 01, 2014
pro se from the August 21,
2013 order entered by the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. We
brief, we must dismiss his appeal.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 states:
Briefs and reproduced records 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 quashed or
dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure: it does not have tables of
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S48013-14
contents and citations in violation of Rule 2174; despite raising four issues
for our review, he includes only a single paragraph of argument that is not
of Rule 2119(a); his argument contains only one citation without any
explanation as to its relevance to the case before us in violation of Rule
2119(b); the authority to which he cites does not stand for the proposition
for which he cites it in violation of Rule 2119(a); he includes no citations to
the record in violation of 2119(c);1 his statement of the case does not
the points in controversy, with an appropriate reference in each instance to
the place in the record where the evidence substantiating the fact relied on
1
Moreover, although Williams appends two orders from the lower court to
his appellate brief, neither of these orders appears in the certified record on
appeal.
It is black letter law in this jurisdiction that an
appellate court cannot consider anything which is not
part of the record in the case. It is also well[]settled
to supply this Court with a complete record for
purposes of review. A failure by Appellant to insure
that the original record certified for appeal contains
sufficient information to conduct a proper review
constitutes waiver of the issue sought to be
examined.
Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514, 524-25 (Pa. Super. 2007)
rt has regularly stated that copying
material and attaching it to a brief does not make it a part of the certified
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122, 126 n.6 (Pa. Super.
2011) (citation omitted).
-2-
J-S48013-14
brief a copy of the opinion of the lower court in violation of Rule 2111(b); he
does not append to his brief a copy of the relevant pleadings in the case in
violation of Rule 2111(c); and the handwritten brief is neither double spaced
nor 14-point font in violation of Rule 124, making it very difficult to read.
nable to discern
the nature of the action below.2
review.
develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting
Commonwealth v. B.D.G.,
959 A.2d 362, 371-72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). We are therefore compelled to dismiss his appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
2101; Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996).
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
2
We recognize that Williams is proceeding pro se lthough 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
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52
(Pa. Super. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
-3-
J-S48013-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/1/2014
-4-