Com. v. Retzler, W.
202 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Appellant Westley Retzler, acting pro se, appealed an order denying him in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
- Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement that the trial court characterized as illegible and incoherent.
- This Court issued a rule to show cause, then discharged it and directed the trial court to provide the notes of testimony and allowed Appellant 21 days after receipt to file an amended 1925(b) statement.
- The trial court filed and certified the transcript; the record does not show Appellant filed an amended 1925(b) in the trial court within the deadline.
- Appellant filed a handwritten 1925(b) statement with this Court well after the 21-day deadline and submitted an appellate brief that was rambling, ad hominem, and lacked legal authority and record citations.
- The Superior Court held the brief defects were so substantial they prevented meaningful appellate review and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s appeal should proceed despite illegible/incoherent Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement | Reztler sought review (implicitly asserting his filings suffice) | Trial court deemed original 1925(b) illegible; Court ordered transcript and allowed amendment; Appellant missed deadline and filed late | Dismissal: defects and late filing prevented adequate review; appeal dismissed |
| Whether pro se status excuses briefing defects and procedural noncompliance | Implied that pro se status should afford leniency | Court: pro se litigants get liberal construction but not special advantage; Court will not act as counsel | Held against Appellant; pro se status did not cure deficiencies |
| Whether appellate brief’s substantive defects mandate dismissal | Appellant submitted a rambling brief with ad hominem attacks and no legal citations | Court emphasized appellant’s duty to present developed arguments with record citations and legal authority | Held: deficiencies so substantial appeal dismissed |
| Whether Court should develop Appellant’s arguments sua sponte | Appellant expected Court to consider his arguments despite poor presentation | Court declined to act as counsel or develop arguments for appellant | Held: Court refused to develop arguments; dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellant must present sufficiently developed arguments; Court will not develop arguments for pro se litigant)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (pro se filings are liberally construed but pro se litigants receive no special advantage)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no right to counsel in summary matters)