J-S53017-14

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O. P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER BURLESON,

Appellant No. 1917 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of November 15, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-56-SA-0000025-2013

BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON AND PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

Appellant, Christopher Burleson, appeals pro se from a judgment of

sentence entered on November 15, 2013, following his su mmary appeal to

the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County. We dis miss this appeal

because of Appellant’s failure to file a brief that con forms to our procedural

rules.

The trial court summarized the historical facts of th is case as follows:

[Appellant] is employed as an over[-]the[-]road tracto r-trailer driver by Weldrite, Inc., Salem, Arkansas, and, on th e occasion in question being February 26, 2013, was making a del ivery of a wood-burning furnace in the village of Jerome, Somer set County, Pennsylvania. [Appellant’s] tractor was pulling a flat bed trailer to a location near [Travis Anderson’s (“Complainant’s”)] residence, 105 Fifth Street, Jerome, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. As he was completing his delivery[, Appel lant] was warned by [his] customer that a curve he was about to take was such that he would probably not be able to [navig ate it] considering the size of his vehicle. After considering hi s options of either attempting to back up around curves in a resi dentialJ-S53017-14

- 2 -

neighborhood or to take the very dangerous and “close to impossible” option of taking the sharp curve as darkness w as upon him, [Appellant] chose to negotiate the sharp cu rve. He entered the sharp right turn by being as far to the l eft as he reasonably could and realized that he had a 50-50 chan ce that he would hit the Complainant’s fence. Inasmuch as he d id not hear a noise, bang, or clunk[, Appellant] “didn’t thi nk much about it.”

Complainant, an off-duty Wildlife Conservation Offi cer employed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, resided at 105 [Fi fth] St[reet], Jerome, PA and was standing in his kitchen wi ndow, looking outside, when he noticed [Appellant’s] tracto r-trailer negotiate the turn in front of his residence as the back tires of the trailer portion [of Appellant’s vehicle] ran over three sections of his split rail fence along his garden. At the time the weather conditions were snowy, and the roads were snow-covered an d slushy. [Complainant] donned his Game Commission jacket with official insignia and jumped into his Game Commission v ehicle because he had just recently parked it and the windows w ere clear of snow. He followed the direction of [Appellan t’s] travel and observed the vehicle approximately 500 yards away sitting in the middle of the road. [Appellant] had stopped at that point because he realized he had not filled out his logbook as required by law and needed to make an entry. Complainant ex ited his Game Commission vehicle behind [Appellant’s] trailer an d proceeded up alongside the truck with a flashlight. As [Complainant] proceeded about halfway towards the tr actor[,] the vehicle began to move and proceed forward down Hi ll Street toward State Highway 601. Complainant returned to his vehicle and turned on his emergency red and blue lights to fo llow [Appellant], who, upon seeing the lights, stopped his v ehicle on Hill Street. Again, Complainant exited his vehicle a nd proceeded up alongside the driver’s side of the tractor-trailer ca rrying his flashlight. Complainant asked [Appellant] if he knew that he had hit Complainant’s fence. [Appellant] responded that t he subject fence was illegally in the right-of-way of the road. Complainant indicated his disagreement and informed [Appellant] t hat the fence was on private property; however, because Complai nant was only a Wildlife Conservation Officer, he [informed Appellant that he] had no jurisdiction for purposes of reporting the incident and that [Appellant] would have to wait until the l ocal police arrived[.] Believing that he was in danger, [Appell ant] proceeded to drive away at normal speed as Complainan t hadJ-S53017-14

- 3 -

returned to his vehicle. Complainant followed in his vehicle at normal speeds with the red and blue lights off so as to avoid alarming the public. Because the rear end of the tra iler was covered by a portable forklift, the license plate was not visible to Complainant who otherwise could have taken the license plate number and reported [it] to the police. Complainant continued to follow [Appellant’s tractor-trailer] onto Route 21 9, a limited access four-lane highway, while he talked with the 911 operator by his cell phone. The [Conemaugh] Township police off icer, Officer [Vincent] Zangaglia, was responding due to the 911 alert and relayed to Complainant to activate his red and bl ue lights in an attempt to stop [Appellant’s] tractor-trailer again

. [Appellant] did, in fact, pull over at the next exit of the limited access highway, the Boswell exit; however, he only staye d there about 30 seconds. It turns out that [Appellant] was also talking to the 911 operator and advised them that he wasn’t w aiting around and was not stopping for Complainant. [Appel lant] again returned to Route 219 whereupon he exited at the ne xt exit, the first of three Somerset exits. At this point in time, the [p]olice had maneuvered to the exit and stopped [Appellant] f rom further travel. The total distance traveled from Je rome to where [Appellant] was finally stopped and cited by the police was approximately [nine] miles. A delayed citation was fi led the next day by Officer Zangaglia indicating that “[Appellant] struck a wooden fence causing damage to the fence and failed to stop and supply information.”

The damage to the fence was established at approximate ly $38.00 which was promptly paid by [Appellant’s] employ er.

[Appellant] was found guilty [by] the District Magistr ate [following a] summary trial and was sentenced to pay a fine and costs totaling $411.11. [Thereafter, Appellant appeal ed his summary conviction and sought a trial de novo before the trial court. Following a non-jury trial convened on Novemb er 15, 2013, the court ordered Appellant to pay a $300.00 f ine after it found him in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3745, enti tled “accidents involving damage to unattended vehicle or property.” This appeal followed.]J-S53017-14

- 4 -

Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 1-4 (opinion not paginated; record

citations omitted). 1

Appellant filed his brief to this Court on May 12, 2 014. Appellant’s

submission consists of a recitation of the historical facts surrounding the

February 26, 2013 incident together with a list of t he reasons supporting

Appellant’s contention that the verdict was erroneous. Appellant’s brief did

not contain any of the sections required under our appe llate rules and failed

to cite pertinent authority and relevant portions of the certified record.

Because Appellant’s noncompliance with our appellate ru les has effectively

precluded appellate review, we are constrained to dism iss this appeal.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure set fort h mandatory

briefing requirements for litigants presenting their cl aims before this Court.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114-2119. Briefs filed with

this Court must include a jurisdictional statement, s tatement of the scope

and standard of review, a statement of the questions presented, and a

statement of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Most importantly, briefs

must contain an argument section that develops claims thr ough meaningful

discussion supported by pertinent legal authority and ci tations to the record.

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8); Pa.R.A.P. 2119. We may quash or dismiss an appeal

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on Novemb er 27, 2013. Thereafter, the trial court issued an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellant to file a concise statement of erro rs complained of on appeal. Appellant filed his concise statement on Decembe r 6, 2013.J-S53017-14

- 5 -

where an appellant fails to comply with the briefing requirements of our

appellate rules. Pa.R.A.P. 2102; see also Commonwealth v. Adams , 882

A.2d 496, 497-498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Superior Court may quash or dismiss

appeals where non-conforming briefs have been filed). “Although the

Superior Court is willing to liberally construe mater ials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.” Id

. at

498.

Appellant’s brief consists exclusively of a factual recitat ion coupled

with a list enumerating the basis of Appellant’s conten tion that the verdict

entered against him was generally unfair. Appellant’ s brief includes none of

Rule 2111’s required sections. In failing to provide p roper appellate

advocacy on any of the claims he presented before the t rial court, Appellant

has precluded meaningful review by this Court. Hence, we dismiss this

appeal. 2

____________________________________________

2 Even if we were to confront the substance of the cla ims Appellant sought to raise on appeal, we would conclude that he is not entit led to relief. As stated above, Appellant filed a concise statement on Dece mber 6, 2013 which asserted that the trial court erred in finding hi m in violation of § 3745 of the Motor Vehicle Code because: (1) he was unaware that he struck Complainant’s fence; (2) it was impossible for Appellant to notify Complainant of the damage because Complainant was alre ady aware of it; (3) Complainant’s fence was not on private property bu t instead constituted an illegal obstruction on a public right-of-way; and (4) Appellant notified the police as promptly as his own safety allowed. Concise Sta tement, 12/6/13, at 1. After quoting § 3745, the trial court rejecte d these claims. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 5-6 (finding that Appel lant’s trial testimony established a “high level of probability” that damag e had occurred; that (Footnote Continued Next Page)J-S53017-14

- 6 -

Appeal dismissed

. Judge Donohue joins the memorandum.

Judge Platt concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/23/2014

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ Appellant could have produced the required informatio n to Complainant without police involvement; that § 3745 imposed a dut y to notify the owner of unattended property (or attach certain informatio n to the damaged property) and notify local police without regard to w hether the property was situated on a public right-of-way or private land; an d, that the trial court refused to believe that personal safety was Appellant’s reason for departing from the scene). These determinations find support in t he record and are free of legal error. Hence, Appellant would not be entitled to relief on substantive grounds.