Com. v. Saez, R.

J-S24026-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RALPH ANTHONY SAEZ :
:
Appellant : No. 1687 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 2, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-55-CR-0000373-2020
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 30, 2023
Ralph Anthony Saez appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence,
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County, following his
convictions by a jury for terroristic threats1 and harassment.2 The convictions
arise from a telephone conversation between Saez and Bo Trawitz, Chief
Probation Officer of Snyder County, in which Saez threatened to shoot Trawitz
if he set foot on Saez’s property. Saez was sentenced to 36 months of
probation on November 2, 2022. For the following reasons, we quash.
Saez’s pro se brief fails in all respects to comply with the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain the order in question, a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1).
2 Id. at § 2709(a)(4).
J-S24026-23
statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the scope and standard of review, a
statement of questions, a statement of the case, or a summary of the
argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Saez’s brief also fails to include any
citation to relevant case law or statutory authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Saez’s status as a pro se litigant does not relieve him of his obligation
to adhere to the Rules of Appellate procedure. See In re Ullman, 995 A.2d
1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted) (“Although this Court is
willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
confers no special benefit upon [an] appellant. To the contrary, any person
choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable
extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.”). Moreover, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop
arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080,
1088 (Pa. Super. 2014). “[W]hen issues are not properly raised and
developed in briefs, [or] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present
specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.”
Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted).
Because Saez’s brief contains no coherent legal arguments and fails to
comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are unable to
perform appellate review. Accordingly, we quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-2-
J-S24026-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/30/2023
-3-