Com. v. Rodgers, K.

J. S11011/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
KEMOH A. RODGERS, :
: No. 989 EDA 2015
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 18, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Criminal Division at No. CP-15-SA-0000664-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 03, 2016
Kemoh A. Rodgers appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence of
March 18, 2015, following his conviction of summary traffic offenses. We
find that appellant’s failure to comply with the appellate rules prevents
meaningful judicial review, and, therefore, we dismiss the instant appeal.
On August 27, 2014, appellant was issued multiple traffic citations for
Operating a Commercial Vehicle not Equipped as Required, including Failure
to have Flares or Triangles and Failure to Display Company Name or DOT
Number on Truck.1 (Trial court opinion, 9/22/15 at 1.) Appellant was also
cited for Failure to Wear a Seatbelt and Driving a Vehicle in an Unsafe
Condition. (Id.) On October 21, 2014, appellant was found guilty of all
1
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107(b)(2).
J. S11011/16
offenses by a magisterial district judge. (Id.) Appellant appealed and a trial
de novo was held on March 18, 2015. (Id.) Appellant was found guilty of
all charged offenses except for Failure to have Fire Extinguisher, of which he
was found not guilty. (Id.)
A timely notice of appeal was filed on April 8, 2015. Appellant
complied with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court has
filed an opinion.
On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,
arguing, inter alia, that the Commonwealth failed to prove his truck was in
excess of the legal weight limit or that he was engaged in interstate
commerce. (Appellant’s brief at 1.) As both the trial court and
Commonwealth observe, the transcripts from the March 18, 2015 trial do not
appear anywhere in the record. Apparently, appellant failed to request
them. (Trial court opinion, 9/22/15 at 2.)
It is Appellant’s responsibility to supply this Court
with a complete record for purposes of appeal,
Pa.R.A.P. 1911, and we may not consider any
information which is not contained in the certified
record. Smith v. Smith, 431 Pa.Super. 588, 637
A.2d 622, 624 (Pa.Super. 1994) (‘[A] failure by an
appellant to insure that the original record certified
for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct
a proper review constitutes a waiver of the issue
sought to be examined.’); Commonwealth v.
Quinlan, 488 Pa. 255, 412 A.2d 494 (1980);
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 403 Pa.Super. 143, 588
A.2d 522 (Pa.Super. 1991).
Commonwealth v. Hallock, 722 A.2d 180, 182 (Pa.Super. 1998).
-2-
J. S11011/16
As in Hallock, supra, a review of the certified record shows that no
request for the transcript of trial pursuant to Rule 1911(a) was ever made by
appellant. It is not the responsibility of this court to obtain the necessary
transcripts. Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7-8 (Pa.Super. 2006)
(citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Steward, 775 A.2d 819,
833 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 792 A.2d 1253 (Pa. 2001) (“To the
contrary, Pa.R.A.P. 1911 makes it abundantly plain that it is the
responsibility of the Appellant to order all transcripts necessary to the
disposition of his appeal.”), citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d
1101, 1103 (Pa. 1998). In fact, the trial court specifically noted that
appellant’s failure to secure the trial transcripts was a hindrance to its review
of the issues. (Trial court opinion, 9/22/15 at 2.)
Furthermore, we note that appellant has filed a one-page brief that
does not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Although 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 an appellant fails to
conform with the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal
denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005), citing Commonwealth v. Maris, 629
A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993); Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
-3-
J. S11011/16
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/3/2016
-4-