Com. v. Jenkins, D. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • J-A17028-21
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee                :
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    DOREL JENKINS                              :
    :
    Appellant               :      No. 3569 EDA 2019
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 16, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001050-2017
    BEFORE:      McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                    FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
    Appellant, Dorel Jenkins, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence
    entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench
    trial conviction for persons not to possess firearms, and jury trial convictions
    for firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on public
    streets or public property in Philadelphia, and possession of a controlled
    substance.1 We affirm.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
    September 24, 2019, Appellant was convicted of the above-mentioned crimes.
    The court sentenced Appellant on December 16, 2019, to an aggregate term
    ____________________________________________
    * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6016, 6108, and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16),
    respectively.
    J-A17028-21
    of 7 to 15 years’ imprisonment, plus five years’ probation. Appellant timely
    filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 18, 2019. On January 15, 2020,
    the court appointed appellate counsel. Following a Grazier2 hearing, the court
    permitted Appellant to proceed pro se on appeal, and let counsel withdraw.
    Appellant subsequently filed a pro se concise statement of errors complained
    of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).3
    Preliminarily, we observe:
    [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
    conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
    Appellate Procedure. … Although this Court is willing to
    liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
    status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
    contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal
    proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his
    lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.
    Commonwealth v. Adams, 
    882 A.2d 496
    , 497-98 (Pa.Super. 2005)
    (internal citations omitted). Additionally, “[this C]ourt will not become the
    counsel for an appellant, and will not, therefore, consider issues which are not
    fully developed in his brief.” Commonwealth v. Gould, 
    912 A.2d 869
    , 873
    (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
    Instantly, Appellant raises eight issues on appeal.          Nevertheless,
    Appellant does not support his claims with relevant legal authority.         See
    Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided into as many parts as
    ____________________________________________
    2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 
    552 Pa. 9
    , 
    713 A.2d 81
     (1998).
    3 The trial court did not issue a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
    -2-
    J-A17028-21
    there are questions to be argued and shall have at head of each part particular
    point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities
    as are deemed pertinent).      Although Appellant mentions several Rules of
    Criminal Procedure in some sections of his argument, he does not indicate
    what those rules state or provide any analysis of them to the facts of his case.
    Appellant’s failure to cite relevant legal authority in support of his claims
    renders his issues waived on appeal.      See Gould, 
    supra at 873
     (holding
    appellant waived issue on appeal where he failed to support it with relevant
    citations to case law and to record; “Because such an omission impedes on
    our ability to address the issue on appeal, an issue that is not properly briefed
    in this manner is considered waived”).       Accordingly, we affirm.    See In
    Interest of K.L.S., 
    594 Pa. 194
    , 
    934 A.2d 1244
     (2007) (stating trial court’s
    order or judgment is more properly “affirmed,” when appellant has failed to
    preserve issues for appeal).
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/14/2021
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3569 EDA 2019

Judges: King

Filed Date: 9/14/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/21/2024