Commonwealth v. Spuck
86 A.3d 870
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Spuck appeals the PCRA court’s June 15, 2012 dismissal order, which this Court quashes for failing to file a brief compliant with appellate rules.
- Conviction history: March 22, 1996 jury found Spuck guilty of third-degree murder and related offenses for stabbing death of Michael Allen Cramer; sentenced to 11–22 years; direct appeal affirmed; Supreme Court denial followed.
- Spuck’s brief in this and related matters is over 80 pages, substantially exceeding both former and amended Rule 2135 word-count limits, and contains improper formatting (single-spaced pages).
- Revisions to Pa.R.A.P. 2135 (effective May 2013) cap principal briefs at 14,000 words (or 30 pages) with a certification of compliance; the rules require exclusions for certain front matter and addenda.
- The court finds multiple rule violations (Rules 2111, 2116, 2117, 2118), including lack of a jurisdictional statement, non-concise questions, improper statement of the case, and a nonconforming summary of the argument.
- Because of substantial noncompliance, the appeal is quashed; the court relies on Laird v. Bernard and related authority, emphasizing that pro se filings must substantially comply with appellate rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be quashed for noncompliant briefing. | Spuck argues his filing, though imperfect, substantially complies and merited consideration. | Spuck’s brief flagrantly violates Rule 2135 and related rules, justifying dismissal/quashment. | Quashed for noncompliance. |
| Whether amended Rule 2135 applies to this pending case. | Spuck contends amended rule should apply to the brief in this case. | Court declines to address merits and relies on overall noncompliance; rule applicability is moot given dismissive basis. | Rule applicability considered but ultimately irrelevant to quash. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laird v. Bernard, 528 A.2d 1379 ((Pa. Super. 1987)) (pro se filings must substantially comply with rules; courts will not act as counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Drew, 510 A.2d 1244 ((Pa. Super. 1986)) (courts scrutinize appellate filings for compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Stoppie, 486 A.2d 994 ((Pa. Super. 1985)) (permits dismissal for noncompliant filings)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 A.2d 882 ((Pa. Super. 1984)) (reinforces need for proper appellate presentation)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 451 A.2d 1360 ((Pa. Super. 1982)) (emphasizes rigorous adherence to procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Viglione, 842 A.2d 454 ((Pa. Super. 2004)) (law of the case doctrine considerations in postconviction matters)