Com. v. Artz, E. ( 2022 )

J-S27041-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
EDWARD J. ARTZ :
:
Appellant : No. 214 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 13, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-15-SA-0000323-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2022
Edward J. Artz (“Artz”)1 appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence
entered after the trial court found him guilty of numerous violations of the
Vehicle Code.2 We dismiss the appeal.
A detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this appeal is
unnecessary given our disposition. Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Robert
Rawley issued the citations to Artz after the trooper initially observed Artz
driving in Chester County in a car with an improper license plate. A magisterial
district court judge found Artz guilty, and Artz timely filed a notice of appeal
____________________________________________
1Artz refers to himself as “i:man, : Edward-james: [ARTZ].” See Artz’s Brief
at 1.
2 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4305(a) (vehicular hazard signal lamps), 1301(a)
(registration and certificate of title required), 1501(a) (drivers required to be
licensed), 4703 (operation of vehicle without official certificate of inspection),
1101(a) (certificate of title required), 4706(c)(5) (evidence of emissions
inspection).
J-S27041-22
in the court of common pleas. At a non-jury trial held over three days, Artz
questioned the trial court’s authority to recognize him as “Mr. Artz.” See N.T.,
12/13/21, at 2. Artz also demanded that the court state whether it had
“subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction, or
territorial jurisdiction over [him].” Id. at 15 (italics added). The trial court
found him guilty and imposed fines and costs. Artz timely appealed. The trial
court did not order a statement of errors complained of on appeal.
As best as we can discern, Artz asserts that the trial court lacked proper
subject matter or personal jurisdiction. See Artz’s Brief at 15-16. Before
reaching the merits of Artz’s issues, however, we must consider whether the
defects in his brief require dismissal of the appeal. Appellate briefs must
conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”), and this Court may dismiss an appeal if the defects
in the brief are substantial. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d
798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “Although this Court is willing to construe
liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special
benefit. Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules
set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Id. (internal citation
omitted). It is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently
developed for our review. An appellate brief must support its claims with
pertinent discussion, references to the record, and citations to legal
authorities. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on
-2-
J-S27041-22
behalf of an appellant.” Id. If a deficient brief hinders this Court’s ability to
address any issue on review, the issue will be regarded as waived. See
Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006)
Artz fails to comply with multiple rules of appellate procedure concerning
the contents of a brief, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2115, and had not included
a statement of the question involved on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Of
even greater importance, Artz’s brief lacks any references to, or discussion of,
applicable legal standards, statutes, or case law. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)
(providing that the argument shall be followed by the discussion and citation
of pertinent authorities). While Artz refers to United States Supreme Court
cases, federal rules of procedure, and uses legal terminology, those cases and
concepts have no applicability to the narrow question of the trial court’s
competency to adjudicate his for violations of the Vehicle Code. See
Commonwealth v. Arcelay, 190 A.3d 609, 614 (Pa. Super. 2018) (noting
that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction relates to the competency of a court to hear
and decide the type of controversy presented”) (internal citation and
quotations omitted).3 Accordingly, we conclude that the substantial defects
____________________________________________
3 Aside from Artz’s citations to inapplicable case law, his references to a
fictional entity or trust bearing his name resemble sovereign citizen claims,
which this Court has recognized as frivolous. See Commonwealth v.
McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 66 (Pa. Super. 2017). To the extent this Court may
address the matter of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, see Arcelay,
190 A.3d at 614, we note that a magisterial district court has subject matter
jurisdiction over summary offenses, such as Artz’s violations of the Vehicle
Code, and a court of common pleas has subject matter jurisdiction over
appeals from final orders of a magisterial district court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 932, 1515(a)(1).
-3-
J-S27041-22
in Artz’s brief preclude meaningful appellate review, and we dismiss this
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing that “if the defects . . . in the brief . . .
are substantial, the appeal . . . may be . . . dismissed”).
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/13/2022
-4-