Com. v. Awad, A.

J-A28013-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ASHRAF A. AWAD :
:
Appellant : No. 884 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-SA-0000001-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 5, 2018
Ashraf A. Awad appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. After our review, we quash
this appeal.
Awad was convicted in absentia of the summary offense of driving while
under suspension in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a). Following a summary
appeal and trial de novo, the court convicted Awad and sentenced him to pay
a fine of $200.00. On appeal, Awad claims the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction.
We note at the outset that Awad’s pro se brief is illegible and
incomprehensible. We remind him, as this Court has previously stated:
[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must
comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if
J-A28013-18
an appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003) (some
citations omitted).
Here, as in Lyons, the defects in Awad’s brief “are substantial.” Id. at
252. Awad’s Statement of the Question Presented reads: “Was the evidence
submitted at trial sufficient?” and continues with, “Yes the Defense or the
Appeals did have and show evidence submitted to the trial sufficient[.]”
Appellant’s Brief, at 9 (emphasis added). The statement continues but is
unintelligible.
Further, in his Statement of the Case, Awad presents the standard of
review for sufficiency of the evidence, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
Additionally, in the Summary of Argument, he again presents the standard of
review, and, in the Argument sections of his brief, he once again presents the
standard of review as well as a rambling statement of facts referring to a
robbery and a gun that we are unable to relate to the summary offense
conviction in this case. It is an appellant’s duty to develop arguments and to
include pertinent citations in his brief. See Commonwealth v. Farmer, 758
A.2d 173, 181 (Pa. Super. 2000); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Awad’s argument and
citations to case law are either indecipherable, irrelevant, or lack meaningful
analysis. In essence, Awad’s brief is incoherent. We refuse to develop an
argument for him or scour the record in attempt to make sense of his claim.
Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007). Even
-2-
J-A28013-18
with the most generous allowances for pro se drafting, we are compelled to
quash the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Drew, 510 A.2d 1244, 1245-46
(Pa. Super. 1986) (quashing appeal where total inadequacy of the appellant’s
brief prevented ascertaining whether there was any possible merit to appeal;
noting that, “we have not hesitated to quash appeals for substantial
noncompliance with these requirements”) (collecting cases);
Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 A.2d 882 (Pa. Super. 1984) (appeal quashed
where brief ignored and seriously undermined the Rules of Appellate
Procedure); see generally Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (briefs shall conform with the
requirements set forth in the Rules of Appellate Procedure, or appeal may be
quashed).
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/05/2018
-3-
J-A28013-18
-4-