Com. v. Hill, J.

J-S34010-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEFFREY DAVID HILL :
:
Appellant : No. 550 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-41-CR-0000266-1986
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 3, 2021
Appellant Jeffrey David Hill appeals pro se from the Order dismissing as
untimely his “Writ of Quo Warranto/Prohibition/Error” after the trial court
deemed it a petition raising claims that would be cognizable under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, if Appellant were still
incarcerated. Appellant has submitted a 191-page document entitled “Writ of
Quo Warranto/Prohibition/Error” as an appellant’s brief. This document is
nearly incomprehensible and, moreover, utterly fails to comply with our
appellate briefing rules. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
We need not set forth the underlying facts, except to note that
Appellant’s judgment of sentence, imposed after a jury found him guilty of
aggravated assault and related charges, became final in 1987. Appellant was
released from prison in 1992. He has filed prolix motions seeking post-
J-S34010-21
conviction relief, both before and after his release from prison nearly three
decades ago. Appellant’s efforts have consistently garnered no relief.
On July 7, 2020, Appellant filed a “Writ of Quo
Warranto/Prohibition/Error” with the court of common pleas, asserting, inter
alia, that his arrest in 1986 resulted from police misconduct, his conviction
resulted from a corrupt bench and bar in Lycoming County, and trial and
appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in defending him against
“politically motivated, trumped up assault charges planned out over the
airwaves by crooked cops[.]” See Writ of Quo Warranto/Prohibition/Error,
Appellant’s Br. at 1. The court filed an Order and Opinion providing notice of
its intent to dismiss without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant
responded. On April 27, 2021, the court addressed Appellant’s Rule 907 notice
response and dismissed Appellant’s petition. See Order, filed Apr. 27, 2021.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal. He subsequently filed a hand-written
document entitled “Writ of Quo Warranto/Prohibition/Error,” which this Court
docketed as Appellant’s brief. Appellant’s “brief” is 191 pages long. It is
comprised of multiple handwritten pages containing lists of numbered, mostly
incomprehensible, complaints alleging incompetent and corrupt attorneys,
police officers, and governmental and judicial bodies. Interspersed among the
handwritten pages are pages from his trial transcript, from statute books, from
case books, prior opinions rendered by this Court denying his multiple PCRA
appeals, newspaper articles, a cartoon, and various and sundry other
materials.
-2-
J-S34010-21
In addition to being nearly incomprehensible, this document fails to
comport with the clear and concise briefing rules set forth in our rules of
appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (requiring conformance with our
rules of appellate procedure and noting substantial defects in the brief may
result in dismissal of the appeal). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114-2119
(providing briefing requirements). As a result of the substantial defects in
Appellant’s “brief,” this Court is unable to provide meaningful review.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/03/2021
-3-