Com. v. Kemmerer, H.

J-A19036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
HAROLD KEMMERER
Appellant No. 3832 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order November 19, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division
at No(s):CP-39-CR-0000200-1987
CP-39-SA-0000108-1995
CP-39-SA-0000358-2006
CP-39-SA-0000378-2011
BEFORE: FORD-ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2016
Pro se Appellant, Harold Kemmerer, appeals from the order entered in
the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas for payment of costs, fines and/or
restitution owed to the Lehigh County Bureau of Collections. We quash.
The facts are unnecessary for our disposition.
[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. Citations to authorities must
articulate the principles for which they are cited.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19036-16
This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.
* * *
The appellate brief is the most vital tool in any effort to
obtain relief on appeal.
* * *
Appellate mandates are not hyper-technical. They
are designed to foster the uniform consideration of
the substantive issues in all cases.
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted). “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.” Commonwealth v. Rivera,
685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).
We reproduce the argument section of Appellant’s brief verbatim.
Argument for Appellant Kemmerer
The Trial Court Erred by Not interpreting the issues at
hand related to the facts
The fact of the matter is I have proof that the
Case No’s 200/1987 CR
358/2006SA
108/1995SA
Were paid and the matter should have been closed.
Copy the Lehigh Court House sent me indicating monies
owed is incorrect and should be corrected.
The Trial Court erred by not allowing me my constitutional
rights to be heard and to present my witnesses.
Also, Judge Maria Dantos should have rescheduled the
case if she was stressed out from the morning cases, not
-2-
J-A19036-16
tell me I heard enough today and I should appeal her
decision.
Argument for Appellant Kemmerer
The Trial Court Erred by prohibiting me from presenting
my case
The Trial Court should have allowed me to present my
witnesses relevant to the case.
The Trial Court should have reviewed the docket sheet
closer and would have realized they counted the court
costs twice for the same case. Therefore adding to the
incorrect amount owed.
Appellant’s Brief at 5-6.
In this case, Appellant’s brief lacks pertinent analysis and citation to
applicable legal authority. See Kane, 10 A.3d at 331. Although we
construe Appellant’s pro se brief liberally, see Rivera, 685 A.2d at 1013, we
are barred from acting as his counsel and developing his arguments for him.
See Kane, 10 A.3d at 331. Accordingly, we quash.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2016
-3-