Com. v. Gardner, D.

J-S44023-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID CHRISTOPHER GARDNER :
:
Appellant : No. 490 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 30, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0001107-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2020
Appellant David Christopher Gardner appeals pro se from the judgment
of sentence imposed following his jury trial convictions for driving under the
influence (DUI) and related offenses. Because Appellant’s brief fails to
conform with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure, we dismiss.
The relevant facts of this case are well known to the parties. On
September 16, 2019, a jury convicted Appellant of one count of DUI—general
impairment, one count DUI—highest rate, and one count driving under
suspension—DUI related.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of 36 to 120 months’ incarceration on October 30, 2019. Appellant filed
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa. C.S. § 3802(a)(1), 3802(c), and 1543(b)(1)(iii), respectively.
J-S44023-20
a timely post-sentence motion on November 12, 2019. On February 19, 2020,
the trial court denied Appellant’s motion.
On March 13, 2020, Appellant timely filed a counseled notice of appeal.
That same day, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. Appellant timely filed a counseled Rule 1925(b) statement on
March 25, 2020. However, on March 27, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se motion
raising counsel’s ineffectiveness and requesting to represent himself. On April
3, 2020, the trial court scheduled a hearing on Appellant’s motion. Appellant’s
counsel filed a motion to withdraw with this Court on April 7, 2020.
On April 9, 2020, we remanded the matter to the trial court to conduct
a Grazier2 hearing to determine whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Order, 4/9/20. On May 4, 2020, the trial
court filed a response stating that it conducted a Grazier hearing on April 24,
2020, and had concluded that Appellant “voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently waived his right to counsel and . . . desire[d] his trial counsel be
removed from his case.” Resp. to Order, 5/24/20. Therefore, the trial court
granted counsel’s request to withdraw and Appellant proceeded pro se.
The trial court issued a new Rule 1925(b) order on April 30, 2020. On
May 15, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, which the trial court
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).
-2-
J-S44023-20
treated as a Rule 1925(b) statement.3 The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a)
opinion stating that it was “unable to discern the specific claims [Appellant]
intend[ed] to raise on appeal.” Trial Ct. Op., 5/28/20, at 5. However, the
trial court addressed Appellant’s general claims regarding due process
violations, lack of evidence, police misconduct, malicious prosecution, and
ineffective assistance of counsel, and ultimately concluded that each issue was
either waived, meritless, or a premature claim for post-conviction relief. Id.
at 7-14.
Appellant filed an application for appointed counsel on June 11, 2020,
which this Court denied the following day. See Order, 6/12/20 (stating that
the trial court had conducted a Grazier hearing and that Appellant knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel). Thereafter,
Appellant filed the instant pro se brief. In response, the Commonwealth filed
a brief requesting that we quash Appellant’s appeal. See Commonwealth’s
Brief at 10.
Initially, we note that appellate briefs must conform to the briefing
requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Where an appellant’s brief contains substantial defects, we
may quash or dismiss the appeal. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496,
497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005). In particular, “[w]hen the omission of the
____________________________________________
3 Although Appellant titled the document “Notice of Appeal,” he indicated that
the filing was in response to the trial court’s April 30, 2020 order. Therein,
Appellant included a list of eleven general claims that he intended to raise on
appeal.
-3-
J-S44023-20
statement of questions [involved] is combined with the lack of any organized
and developed arguments, it becomes clear that appellant’s brief is insufficient
to allow us to conduct meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers,
670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).
“This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on
behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “[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.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a)-(c). As such, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed
in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for
review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v.
Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted).
“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a
pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit.” Commonwealth
v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “[A]ny layperson
choosing to represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal
training will prove [his] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d
1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted and some formatting altered).
Here, the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial. Importantly, the
brief does not contain a statement of questions, a summary of the argument,
-4-
J-S44023-20
or an argument section. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2116, 2118-2119. Instead,
Appellant includes a two-page statement of the case that makes no reference
to the factual and procedural history of the case and is unintelligible. See
Appellant’s Brief at 2-4. Further, Appellant fails to clearly state any single
claim of error or cite any supporting principle of law. See id. Given these
omissions, we are unable to decipher the claims that Appellant intends to raise
on appeal. See Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771; see also Smathers, 670 A.2d at
1160. Although we acknowledge that Appellant did not have the assistance
of counsel, his choice to proceed pro se does not afford him any special
benefit. See Tchirkow, 160 A.3d at 804. Accordingly, because the
substantial defects in Appellant’s brief preclude us from meaningful appellate
review, we dismiss. See Adams, 882 A.2d at 497-98; see generally
Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996, 1001 n.3 (Pa. 2001)
(distinguishing quashal from dismissal).
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/2020
-5-