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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 summary appeal to 

the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County. We dismiss this appeal 

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

rules. 

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

[Appellant] is employed as an over[-]the[-]road tractor-trailer 

driver by Weldrite, Inc., Salem, Arkansas, and, on the occasion 

in question being February 26, 2013, was making a delivery of a 

wood-burning furnace in the village of Jerome, Somerset County, 

Pennsylvania. [Appellant’s] tractor was pulling a flatbed trailer 

to a location near [Travis Anderson’s (“Complainant’s”)]

residence, 105 Fifth Street, Jerome, Somerset County, 

Pennsylvania. As he was completing his delivery[, Appellant] 

was warned by [his] customer that a curve he was about to take 

was such that he would probably not be able to [navigate it] 

considering the size of his vehicle. After considering his options 

of either attempting to back up around curves in a residential 
J-S53017-14 

- 2 - 

neighborhood or to take the very dangerous and “close to 

impossible” option of taking the sharp curve as darkness was 

upon him, [Appellant] chose to negotiate the sharp curve. He 

entered the sharp right turn by being as far to the left as he 

reasonably could and realized that he had a 50-50 chance that 

he would hit the Complainant’s fence. Inasmuch as he did not 

hear a noise, bang, or clunk[, Appellant] “didn’t think much 

about it.” 

Complainant, an off-duty Wildlife Conservation Officer employed 

by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, resided at 105 [Fifth] 

St[reet], Jerome, PA and was standing in his kitchen window, 

looking outside, when he noticed [Appellant’s] tractor-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 and 

slushy. [Complainant] donned his Game Commission jacket with 

official insignia and jumped into his Game Commission vehicle 

because he had just recently parked it and the windows were 

clear of snow. He followed the direction of [Appellant’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 exited his 

Game Commission vehicle behind [Appellant’s] trailer and 

proceeded up alongside the truck with a flashlight. As 

[Complainant] proceeded about halfway towards the tractor[,] 

the vehicle began to move and proceed forward down Hill Street 

toward State Highway 601. Complainant returned to his vehicle 

and turned on his emergency red and blue lights to follow 

[Appellant], who, upon seeing the lights, stopped his vehicle on 

Hill Street. Again, Complainant exited his vehicle and proceeded 

up alongside the driver’s side of the tractor-trailer carrying his 

flashlight. Complainant asked [Appellant] if he knew that he had 

hit Complainant’s fence. [Appellant] responded that the subject 

fence was illegally in the right-of-way of the road. Complainant 

indicated his disagreement and informed [Appellant] that the 

fence was on private property; however, because Complainant 

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 local police 

arrived[.] Believing that he was in danger, [Appellant] 

proceeded to drive away at normal speed as Complainant had 
J-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 trailer 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 219, a limited 

access four-lane highway, while he talked with the 911 operator 

by his cell phone. The [Conemaugh] Township police officer, 

Officer [Vincent] Zangaglia, was responding due to the 911 alert 

and relayed to Complainant to activate his red and blue 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 stayed there 

about 30 seconds. It turns out that [Appellant] was also talking 

to the 911 operator and advised them that he wasn’t waiting 

around and was not stopping for Complainant. [Appellant] again 

returned to Route 219 whereupon he exited at the next exit, the 

first of three Somerset exits. At this point in time, the [p]olice 

had maneuvered to the exit and stopped [Appellant] from 

further travel. The total distance traveled from Jerome to where 

[Appellant] was finally stopped and cited by the police was 

approximately [nine] miles. A delayed citation was filed 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 approximately 

$38.00 which was promptly paid by [Appellant’s] employer. 

[Appellant] was found guilty [by] the District Magistrate 

[following a] summary trial and was sentenced to pay a fine and 

costs totaling $411.11. [Thereafter, Appellant appealed his 

summary conviction and sought a trial de novo before the trial 

court. Following a non-jury trial convened on November 15, 

2013, the court ordered Appellant to pay a $300.00 fine after it 

found him in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3745, entitled “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, 2014. Appellant’s 

submission consists of a recitation of the historical facts surrounding the 

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

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

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

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

Because Appellant’s noncompliance with our appellate rules has effectively 

precluded appellate review, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. 

 The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth mandatory 

briefing requirements for litigants presenting their claims 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, statement 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 through meaningful 

discussion supported by pertinent legal authority and citations 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 November 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 errors complained of on 

appeal. Appellant filed his concise statement on December 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 materials 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 recitation coupled 

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

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

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

advocacy on any of the claims he presented before the trial 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 claims Appellant sought to 

raise on appeal, we would conclude that he is not entitled to relief. As 

stated above, Appellant filed a concise statement on December 6, 2013 

which asserted that the trial court erred in finding him 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 already aware of it; 

(3) Complainant’s fence was not on private property but 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 Statement, 12/6/13, 

at 1. After quoting § 3745, the trial court rejected these claims. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 5-6 (finding that Appellant’s trial testimony 

established a “high level of probability” that damage 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 information to Complainant 

without police involvement; that § 3745 imposed a duty to notify the owner 

of unattended property (or attach certain information to the damaged 

property) and notify local police without regard to whether the property was 

situated on a public right-of-way or private land; and, that the trial court 

refused to believe that personal safety was Appellant’s reason for departing 

from the scene). These determinations find support in the record and are 

free of legal error. Hence, Appellant would not be entitled to relief on 

substantive grounds.