Com. v. Liptok, J., Jr.

J. A03045/15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JOHN JOSEPH LIPTOK, JR., :
:
Appellant : No. 176 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 6, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-54-SA-0000168-2013
BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2015
Pro se Appellant, John Joseph Liptok, Jr., appeals from the judgment
of sentence entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas
following his summary conviction for having an obscured registration plate.1
We dismiss.
The facts are unnecessary for our disposition. This Court has stated:
[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments
that are sufficiently developed for our review.
The brief must support the claims with pertinent
discussion, with references to the record and
with citations to legal authorities. . . .
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
75 Pa.C.S. § 1332(b)(3). Appellant also appears to challenge an alleged
conviction for improperly having emergency signals on his vehicle, but he
was not convicted of that offense. N.T. Trial, 2/12/14, at 26.
J. A03045/15
This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.
Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our
ability to conduct meaningful appellate review,
we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find
certain issues to be waived.
. . . Any effort and preparation for appeal are lost if the
arguments in the brief are presented improperly,
incompletely, or inaccurately. . . .
. . . We must not proceed haphazardly—
following procedure in one case, ignoring it in
another—under the guise of reaching those
substantive issues. While doing so might lead
us to resolve the merits in any one matter, it
would be unfair to litigants and counsel in so
many other cases who do follow the rules.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331-32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted). “While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that [the] appellant is not entitled to any particular
advantage because she lacks legal training.” Commonwealth v. Rivera,
685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996).
In this case, Appellant’s brief is incomprehensible and lacks pertinent
analysis.2 See Kane, 10 A.3d at 331-32. Although we construe Appellant’s
pro se brief liberally, see Rivera, 685 A.2d at 1013, we are barred from
acting as his counsel. See Kane, 10 A.3d at 331. Accordingly, we dismiss.
2
Appellant is not entitled to counsel for summary offenses. See
Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-2-
J. A03045/15
Regardless, we would hold Appellant’s issue lacks merit. Appellant
appears to be challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction.
The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is de
novo, as it is a question of law. Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d
1233, 1235 (Pa. 2007).
[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction . . . does not
require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the
evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Instead, it must determine simply whether the
evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to
support the verdict.
Id. at 1235-36 (citations and quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether
the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are
sufficient to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. at 1237 (citation omitted). With respect to obscured
registration plate, the relevant statute follows:
(b) Obscuring plate.—It is unlawful to display on any
vehicle a registration plate which:
* * *
(3) is otherwise illegible at a reasonable distance or is
obscured in any manner.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1332(b)(3). After careful consideration of the record, including
the police officer’s trial testimony that Appellant’s wheelchair rack obscures
-3-
J. A03045/15
his license plate and photographic evidence of same, we would be
constrained to hold that the evidence believed by the trial court supports
Appellant’s summary conviction. See Ratsamy, 934 A.2d at 1235-36.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/23/2015
-4-