Com. v. Talecki, R. ( 2015 )

J-A09029-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ROBERT TALECKI, :
:
Appellant : No. 2796 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 19, 2014,
Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Criminal Division at No. CP-15-SA-0000268-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2015
Robert Talecki (“Talecki”) appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered on August 19, 2014 by the Court of Common Pleas,
Chester County, finding him guilty of five summary traffic offenses. For the
reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
A brief summary of the relevant facts and procedural history follows.
On January 9, 2014, Trooper Jeffrey Smith of the Pennsylvania State Police
issued five traffic citations to Talecki for following too closely, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §
3310(a), disregarding traffic lanes, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309(1), reckless driving,
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3736(a), careless driving, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714(a), and
improper pass on the right – off road, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(2). On May 8,
2014, Magisterial Justice John R. Bailey held a hearing and found Talecki
guilty on all counts. On June 2, 2014, Talecki filed a notice of appeal from
J-A09029-15
summary criminal conviction to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.
The trial court held a hearing on August 19, 2014 and issued guilty verdicts
on all counts.
On September 17, 2014, Talecki filed a timely notice of appeal to this
Court. In his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant
to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Talecki
alleges the following:
1. No physical evidence was presented by the
Commonwealth.
2. Commonwealth’s witness, whom [Talecki] has
been identified as the perpetrator (sic), has
substantially changed his testimony from the
testimony presented before Magisterial Justice
John R. Bailey with no collaboration of any other
witness or physical evidence.
3. The Pennsylvania State Police trooper testifying
on behalf of the Commonwealth was not the
actual trooper on duty on [r]oute 30 around the
time of the alleged incident. Further, he has
provided testimony that is hearsay.
See Talecki’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
We begin by noting, “[f]or the purposes of appeal, it is the
responsibility of the appellant to offer a complete record for our review.”
Commonwealth v. Lassen, 659 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 1995)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Muntz, 630 A.2d 51, 55 (Pa. Super. 1993)).
“Failure to ensure that the record provides sufficient information to conduct
a meaningful review ‘constitutes waiver of the issue sought to be reviewed.’”
-2-
J-A09029-15
Commonwealth v. Johns, 812 A.2d 1260, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(quoting Boyle v. Steiman, 631 A.2d 1025, 1030 (Pa. Super. 1993)).
In Preston, this Court established that
[w]ith 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).[1] … When the appellant or cross-appellant
fails 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.
Preston, 904 A.2d at 7 (footnote added).
Based upon our review of the certified record, Talecki did not order or
pay for the transcript from the August 19, 2014 hearing. In these
situations, “[i]t is not proper for … the Superior Court to order transcripts
nor is it the responsibility of the appellate courts to obtain the necessary
transcripts.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101,
1105 (Pa. 1998)). Thus, in the absence of a transcript of the hearing at
which Talecki’s guilt was determined, we are unable to conduct a meaningful
1
Rule 1911(a) provides:
(a) General rule. The appellant shall request any
transcript required under this chapter in the manner
and make any necessary payment or deposit
therefor in the amount and within the time
prescribed by Rules 5000.1 et seq. of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration (court
reporters).
-3-
J-A09029-15
review of Talecki’s claims on appeal. All of Talecki’s claims are therefore
waived.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/13/2015
-4-