Com. v. Cummings, R.
3241 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Robert W. Cummings, Jr. was convicted after a non-jury trial on counts of intimidation of a witness and terroristic threats (multiple dockets); he was acquitted on related sexual-offense charges at a separate docket.
- On August 6, 2014, Cummings was sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment plus four years’ probation.
- No post-sentence motion or direct appeal was filed; Cummings filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 9, 2015.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and petition to withdraw; the PCRA court granted counsel’s withdrawal and issued Rule 701 notice on September 25, 2015, then dismissed the petition on October 20, 2015.
- Cummings filed a pro se notice of appeal (dated erroneously to September 25, 2015) on October 28, 2015 and submitted a five-page pro se appellate brief that failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) requirements.
- The Superior Court found the brief’s defects so substantial that it precluded meaningful appellate review and quashed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be considered despite defects in appellant’s brief | Cummings (appellant) submitted a short pro se brief and attachments; implicitly argues appellate review should proceed | Commonwealth argues appellant’s brief fails to meet Pa.R.A.P. briefing requirements and therefore precludes review | Appeal quashed for substantial briefing defects preventing meaningful appellate review |
| Whether pro se status excuses noncompliance with appellate briefing rules | Cummings relies on his pro se status and submitted materials attached from PCRA filings | Commonwealth and court assert pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate rules | Pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P.; appellant remains bound by rules |
| Whether procedural errors in notice (wrong date listed) affect appeal | Cummings listed an incorrect order date on the notice of appeal | Commonwealth notes correct dismissal date was October 20, 2015 and appeal was filed timely on October 28, 2015 | Court corrected caption to reflect proper order date; the notice-date error did not alter dismissal outcome |
| Whether counsel’s Turner/Finley withdrawal affects the availability of PCRA review | Cummings challenges the PCRA process implicitly by filing appeal | Commonwealth relied on valid Turner/Finley procedures followed by PCRA court | Court did not reach substantive PCRA claims because brief defects precluded review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (court may quash or dismiss appeal for substantial noncompliance with appellate rules)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se status does not entitle appellant to special advantage or excuse noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (appeal quashed where brief violations precluded meaningful appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standards for counsel requesting leave to withdraw in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (requirements for court review of counsel’s no-merit/withdrawal submission)