Case Information
NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA [1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM CUMMINGS JR.
Appellant No. 3241 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order October 20, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 23 -CR- 0001226 -2014
CP- 23 -CR- 0001227 -2014
BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. FILED OCTOBER 24, 2016
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Robert William Cummings, Jr., appeals from the order entered October the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, that 20, 2015,1 dismissed, without hearing, first petition pursuant the Post Conviction Act (PCRA), Pa.C.S. §§ -9546. Cummings seeks relief from the judgment of sentence to serve aggregate term of two to six years' imprisonment four -year term probation. We quash appeal.
i We mistakenly listed on the notice of appeal that appeal was taken from the order entered on September 25, 2015. PCRA dismissed Cummings' petition October 20, 2015. Cummings notice appeal October 28, Accordingly, we have amended the caption reflect the proper date of the order under appeal.
The Honorable Kevin Kelly has provided a detailed summary of the procedural history of this case in extensive, 40 -page Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/11/2016, at [1] -9.2 Turning examine the merits of this appeal, we find substantial defects in brief by Cummings preclude our review.
At the outset, we appellate briefs are required to "conform in all material respects" with the briefing requirements set forth of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the defects brief are substantial. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 -498 (Pa. Super. 2005) "This Court may quash or dismiss appeal if the appellant fails conform [2] Cummings was tried a non -jury trial involving three separate cases: Docket Nos. 1226 -14, 1227 -14, and 1223 -14. At Docket No. 1226 -14, Cummings was found guilty intimidation of a witness (two counts) and terroristic threats. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4952(a)(3), 4952(a)(6) and 2706, respectively. At Docket No. 1227 -14, Cummings was found guilty of intimidation a witness (two counts) and terroristic threats. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4952(a)(3), 4952(a)(6) and 2706, respectively. At Docket No. -14, was found not guilty all prosecuted offenses, including multiple rape involuntary deviate sexual intercourse counts. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/11/2016, at 4.
On August 6, 2014, Cummings was sentenced as stated above. No post- sentence motion direct appeal was filed. Cummings se PCRA petition April 9, PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed withdraw Turner /Finley no -merit letter. See petition Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 Super. 1988) (en banc). On September 25, 2015, court granted counsel's petition withdraw issued Pa.R.Crim.P. notice of intent to dismiss. The dismissed Cummings' petition October 20, 2015.
J-S70022-16
to requirements set forth Pennsylvania Rules Appellate Procedure. "). Furthermore, we Cummings' pro se status does not excuse failure comply with the rules of appellate practice. id. at ( "Although this Court is willing liberally construe materials by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. "); Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 Super. 1996) "While this Court is willing liberally construe materials by litigants, ... appellant is not entitled any particular advantage because [he] lacks legal training. ") (citation omitted).
The of Appellate Procedure set forth the following requirements regarding the content of an appellant's brief: Rule Brief of the Appellant
(a) General rule.- brief of the appellant, except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matters, separately distinctly entitled the following order: (1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order other determination question.
(3) Statement both scope of review standard of review.
(4) Statements of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow appeal to challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence, if applicable.
J-S70022-16
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(10) opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions (b) (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), averment that no order requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (emphasis added). "Additionally, through 2119 specify in greater detail the material to be included in briefs appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. -2119." Adams, 882 A.2d at 498.
Cummings' five -page pro brief consists of two hand -printed pages of self- serving assertions defense of the charges brought against him, copies of three hand -printed pages he had included with se petition, copy his Rule 1925(b) statement. This brief evidences Cummings' failure conform with all the Rule 2111(a) briefing requirements, with one exception of attachment brief copy of the statement errors complained of appeal.
Given the substantial defects Cummings' brief, we are hampered from effective appellate review. In short, we are unable discern what is claiming be error that gives rise to this appeal. Accordingly, we quash this appeal. Rivera, supra at 1013 "Since the defects appellant's brief are substantial preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful appellate review, we quash his
J-S70022-16 appeal. "). also Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 Super. 1993) (appeal quashed because brief violated rules of appellate procedure degree precluded court from conducting meaningful review of appellant's claims).
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
J: seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 10/24/2016
