Com. v. Rodriguez, A. ( 2017 )

J-S04021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ
Appellant No. 2282 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0004038-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 23, 2017
Alexis Rodriguez appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
May 3, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County.
Rodriguez pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated assault, graded as a
felony of the first degree,1 and was sentenced to serve a term of three to 20
years’ imprisonment. Based upon the following, we dismiss this appeal for
failure to adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rodriguez claims (1) he did not enter his nolo contendere plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, (2) the trial court abused its
discretion by denying him a hearing on his motion to invalidate or withdraw
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1).
J-S04021-17
his nolo contendere plea, and (3) the court sentenced him excessively. See
Rodriguez’s Brief at 7.2 The Commonwealth contends that all issues raised
in this appeal have been waived for failure to properly develop any
arguments in the brief,3 and we agree.
Appellate briefs must conform to the Rule of Appellate Procedure.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Where an appellant sets forth no argument whatsoever in
support of his claim, the claim is waived. See Commonwealth v.
Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 502 (Pa. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 92
(2016), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014)
(holding “[w]here an appellate brief fails to … develop an issue in any other
meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the
obligation of an appellate court to formulate appellant's arguments for him.”
(internal quotations omitted)). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring
argument in appellate briefs contain “such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent”). Further, “if the defects are in the
____________________________________________
2
Rodriguez filed a post sentence motion to invalidate his nolo contendere
plea and a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which were denied by the
trial court. Rodriguez’s post sentence motions “requested that the plea be
vacated because his free will was overcome by his mental health disorders,
his mother’s terminal illness, abuse he was facing by other inmates in the
county prison and overall pressure about what other’s [sic] believed he had
done. [Rodriguez] also complained that the sentence was too harsh and
excessive.” Rodriguez’s Brief at 8.
3
See Commonwealth Brief at 5.
-2-
J-S04021-17
brief of the appellant … and are substantial, the appeal may be quashed or
dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
The entire argument section for the three issues raised on appeal
spans one and one-half pages. Each issue is discussed with perfunctory
legal citation, followed two or three conclusory sentences. There is no
factual discussion or analysis to demonstrate the trial judge’s error in
denying Rodriguez’s post sentence motions to invalidate the nolo contendere
plea and for reconsideration of sentence. As such, we deem the defects in
Rodriguez’s brief to be sufficiently substantial to preclude any meaningful
review. We therefore elect to exercise our discretion under Rule 2101 and
dismiss this appeal.4
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/23/2017
____________________________________________
4
The trial court has authored a comprehensive opinion that fully addresses
and cogently rejects the claims raised by Rodriguez in the post sentence
motions. If we were to reach the issues raised by Rodriguez, we would
affirm on the basis of the August 17, 2016, opinion of the Honorable Jennifer
R. Sletvold.
-3-