Com. v. Trice, D.

J-A20026-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID TYRONE TRICE, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 333 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order February 13, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-SA-0002363-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 3, 2018
David Trice appeals pro se from the order, entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his summary convictions for
one count each of duties at stop sign, 1 driving an unregistered vehicle,2
operating a vehicle without valid inspection,3 and evidence of emission
inspection.4 After careful review, we quash.
Trice was found guilty of the above-mentioned summary offenses and
ordered to pay a $150 fine, plus costs. Trice filed a summary appeal from
these convictions. Neither Trice nor his citing officer appeared for the de novo
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(b).
2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301(a).
3 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4703(a).
4 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4706(c)(5).
J-A20026-18
hearing that was held on February 13, 2018. Accordingly, the trial court
dismissed the summary appeal and judgment was entered against Trice. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D). This timely pro se appeal follows.
Trice has failed to adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111; 2114-2119. Specifically, he fails
to provide this Court with a concrete issue to be reviewed and also fails to set
forth any argument, case law or other authority relevant to the entry of his
summary convictions. Due to the numerous defects in Trice’s brief, we are
prevented from conducting a meaningful review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (briefs
shall conform in all material respect with requirements of appellate rules as
nearly as circumstances of particular case will admit; if defects in brief are
substantial, appeal may be quashed or dismissed); see also Commonwealth
v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1982) (when issues are not properly
raised and developed in briefs and when briefs are wholly inadequate to
present specific issues for review, our Court will not consider merits of case).
Thus, we quash the appeal.5
____________________________________________
5 In Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996), our Court
stated:
While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because []he lacks legal training. As our
[S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to
represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
-2-
J-A20026-18
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/3/2018
____________________________________________
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and
legal training will prove [his] undoing.
Id. at 1013 (quoting O’Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682
(Pa. Super. 1989)).
-3-