Com. v. Vaughn, H.

J-S28020-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
HARVEY DALE VAUGHN,
Appellant No. 1634 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered August 28, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-01-CR-0001039-2001
BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and LAZARUS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED MAY 14, 2015
Harvey Dale Vaughn appeals pro se from the order denying his petition
for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Section 9543.1 of the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46.
On January 28, 2003, a jury convicted Appellant of committing
multiple sexual offenses against his twelve-year-old daughter. On October
8, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 12½ to
25 years of imprisonment. Following the denial of his post-sentence motion,
Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court. In an unpublished
memorandum filed on April 3, 2006, we affirmed Appellant’s judgment of
sentence. Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 902 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme
Court.
J-S28020-15
On May 4, 2007, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA
court appointed counsel, and PCRA counsel filed an amended petition on
October 5, 2007. On October 22, 2007, the PCRA court held an evidentiary
hearing. By order entered January 15, 2008, the PCRA court granted
Appellant’s amended PCRA petition with regard to a sentencing issue, but
otherwise denied post-conviction relief. Appellant filed a timely appeal to
this Court. In an unpublished memorandum filed on November 18, 2008,
we affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of relief, agreeing that Appellant’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. Commonwealth
v. Vaughn, 964 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. 2008). On May 13, 2009, our
Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 971 A.2d 493 (Pa. 2009).
On May 21, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition for DNA testing. On
August 22, 2014, the PCRA court held a pre-hearing conference in which
Appellant participated by video. At that time, Appellant stated that he
wanted DNA testing of his clothing, the victim’s clothing, bed sheets, and the
rape kit. The PCRA court acknowledged that clothing taken from Appellant
on the date of his arrest was destroyed in 2012, and the Commonwealth
proffered that a rape kit was not used in its investigation. After considering
the statutory requirements relative to DNA testing under the PCRA, the
PCRA court, by order entered August 28, 2014, denied relief. This timely
pro se appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court have
substantially complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-S28020-15
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the following
with regard to the content of an appellant’s brief:
Rule 2111. Brief of Appellant
(a) General rule.—The brief of the appellant, except
as otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist
of the following matters, separately and distinctly
entitled and in the following order.
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and
the standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal
to challenge the discretionary aspects of a
sentence, if applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief
sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in (b)
and (c) of this rule.
(11) In Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
errors complained of on appeal, filed with the
trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an
averment that no order requiring a statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
(b) Opinions below.—There shall be appended to the
brief a copy of any opinions delivered by any court
or other government unit below relating to the
order or other determination under review, if
-3-
J-S28020-15
pertinent to the questions involved. If an opinion
has been reported, that fact and the appropriate
citation shall also be set forth.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (a), (b).
We note that “[w]hile this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by pro se litigants, . . . Appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because [he] lacks legal understanding.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996).
Here, our review of Appellant’s pro se brief reveals his failure to
conform to all of the Pa.R.A.P. 2111 briefing requirements. Indeed,
Appellant’s five-page handwritten brief consists largely of unintelligible and
nonsensical discussion of federal case law. We are thus hampered from
effective appellate review, and dismiss Appellant’s appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (if the defects are in the brief … of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal … may be quashed or dismissed). See Rivera, 685
A.2d at 1103 (explaining that when issues are not properly raised and
developed in briefs, and the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific
issues for review, this Court will not consider their merits); see also
Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d 870 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Appeal dismissed. Order affirmed.
-4-
J-S28020-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/14/2015
-5-