Com. v. McLeary, M.

J-S74004-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL MCLEARY
Appellant No. 1855 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 4, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002256-2007
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED DECEMBER 22, 2014
I agree with the Majority that the substantial defects in Appellant’s
brief prevent meaningful appellate review. Because I believe the proper
disposition under these circumstances is dismissal rather than quashal, I
respectfully dissent. See Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1254-55
(Pa. Super. 2012) (Strassburger, J., concurring and dissenting) (noting that
our Supreme Court in Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa.
2001), enumerated the circumstances under which quashal is appropriate,
all of which implicated lack of jurisdiction over the appeal; in the absence of
those circumstances, dismissal is the appropriate disposition).
____________________________________________

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.