J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1765 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0002035-2012, 

CP-09-CR-0004709-2011, CP-09-CR-0004719-2011, 

CP-09-CR-0004747-2011, CP-09-CR-0004863-2011

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2548 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0004709-2011

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2549 EDA 2021
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 2 -

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0004719-2011

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2550 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0004747-2011

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2551 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0004863-2011

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WALTER FRANK MEYERLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2552 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 23, 2021
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 3 -

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-09-CR-0002035-2012

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2023

In these consolidated appeals,1 Walter Frank Meyerle (Appellant) 

appeals, pro se, from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common 

Pleas dismissing his first, timely petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2 Appellant seeks relief from the judgment of 

sentence of an aggregate term of 4791⁄2 to 959 years’ imprisonment following 

his non-jury convictions of 188 criminal offenses involving his sexual abuse of 

multiple male and female minor victims over a 14-year period, his possession 

of child pornography, and his attempt to escape from prison. On appeal, 

Appellant raises claims asserting: (1) the ineffective assistance of prior 

counsel; (2) the denial of his due process when the trial court refused a 

continuance request; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the denial of his 

right to assist in his defense due to side effects from his medication. For the 

reasons below, we affirm the order at Docket 1765 EDA 2021, and quash the 

appeals at Dockets 2548-2552 EDA 2021. 

____________________________________________

1 On May 16, 2022, this Court consolidated the appeals at Dockets 2548-2552 

EDA 2021, and directed that they be listed consecutively to the appeal at 

Docket 1765 EDA 2021. See Order, 5/16/22. We further ordered the parties 

to address the appeals in one consolidated brief. See id.

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 4 -

The relevant facts underlying Appellant’s convictions are summarized in 

the PCRA court’s 67-page opinion, and we need not recite them in detail 

herein. See PCRA Ct. Op., 10/25/21, at 4-17 (citation omitted). Suffice it to 

say that from 1997 through 2011, Appellant groomed and sexually abused 15 

minor, male and female victims, ranging in age from 4 to 17 years old. The 

PCRA court detailed the relevant procedural history as follows:

On March 16, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with 42 

criminal offenses for crimes committed against K.M., a female 

minor (Docket No. 4719-2011). On May 13, 2011, [Appellant]

was charged with 213 criminal offenses for crimes committed 

against 13 additional victims, male and female minors (Docket No. 

4747-2011). On June 27, 2011, [Appellant] was charged with 40 

counts of Child Pornography and Criminal Use of a 

Communications Facility (Docket No. 4709-2011). On June 27, 

2011, [Appellant] was charged with two criminal offenses in 

connection with [his] plan to escape from Bucks County 

Correctional Facility (Docket No. 4863 -2011). Private counsel,

Kevin Mark Wray, Esquire, . . . was retained to represent

[Appellant] in May, 2011. In July of 2011, [Appellant] waived his 

preliminary hearings in all four cases. On October 24, 2011, 

[Attorney Wray] filed an omnibus pretrial motion.

On February 21, 2012, [Appellant] was charged with eight 

criminal offenses for crimes committed against M.C., a female 

minor (Docket No. 2035-2012). The preliminary hearing was held 

on March 21, 2012. All charges were held for court.

On March 21, 2012, [Attorney] Wray filed four additional 

pretrial motions. A hearing on all of [Appellant’s] motions began 

on April 16, 2012 and concluded on April 20, 2012. During the 

course of that hearing, [Appellant] advised [the trial c]ourt that 

he wanted to fire [Attorney] Wray and asked for time to find new 

counsel. [Appellant’s] request for a continuance of the trial to 

obtain new counsel was granted. Trial was scheduled for July 16, 

2012. The pretrial hearings continued as scheduled. 

[Appellant] thereafter applied and was approved for Public 

Defender representation. Due to a conflict of interest, on June 27, 

2012, private conflict counsel, Michael S. Goodwin, Esquire and
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 5 -

William Craig Penglase, Esquire, . . . were appointed to represent 

[Appellant]. Two attorneys were appointed due to the nature of 

the case and because trial was scheduled to begin at the end of 

July. On July 23, 2012, [Attorneys Goodwin and Penglase] filed 

eight supplemental pretrial motions.

On July 24, 2012, the trial was continued to August 13, 

2012. A hearing on the supplemental pretrial motions was held 

on July 26, 2012. Prior to the hearing, the Commonwealth

requested a continuance of the trial date due to the unavailability 

of one of the lead detectives. That request was denied. On the 

day of the hearing, [Attorneys Goodwin and Penglase] requested 

a continuance of the trial date. That motion was also denied. 

On August 13, 2012, [Appellant] waived his right to trial by 

jury and the cases proceeded by stipulated waiver trial. 

[Appellant] stipulated to the admission of the Commonwealth’s 

evidence through police reports, the testimony of the investigators 

and other exhibits. On August 21, 2012, [Appellant] was found 

guilty of 188 criminal offenses [arising under all five trial court 

dockets, including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 

aggravated indecent assault, sexual abuse of children-child 

pornography, and solicitation to commit escape.3]

* * *

In October, 2012, Stuart Wilder, Esquire, . . . was appointed 

to represent [Appellant].

On January 24, 2013, [Appellant] was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of incarceration of 4941⁄2 to 989 years. By order 

dated January 30, 2013, this Court vacated sentence on two 

counts in Docket No. 2035-2012, reducing the aggregate 

minimum sentence to 4791⁄2 to 959 years imprisonment. On 

February 4, 2013, [Appellant] filed post-sentence motions[, which 

were later withdrawn]. 

On April 22, 2013, [Appellant] filed a timely appeal. On 

December 24, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of 

sentence[, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later denied 

Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. See 

____________________________________________

3 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1), (6), (7), and (b), 3125(a)(7), 

(8), and (b), 6312(d), 902(a) and 5121(a), respectively.
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Meyerle, 1252 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Dec. 

24, 2012), appeal denied, 54 MAL 2013 (Pa. Jun. 11, 2015).]

On April 21, 2016, [Appellant] filed a pro se request for 

PCRA relief. On February 7, 2016, Paul G. Lang, Esquire, was 

appointed to represent [Appellant]. On May 15, 2017, [Attorney]

Lang filed a Motion to Appoint Substitute Counsel based on 

[Appellant’s] multiple allegations of ineffective assistance, 

[Appellant’s] allegation that [Attorney] Lang’s law partner 

represented one of the victim[s] and [Attorney] Lang’s belief that 

there was an irretrievable and irrevocable breakdown in the 

attorney/client relationship. On October 18, 2017, a hearing on

PCRA counsel’s motion was held. At that time, [Appellant] agreed 

that [Attorney] Lang did not have a conflict of interest and advised 

[the PCRA c]ourt that he wanted [Attorney] Lang to continue to 

represent him. The Motion to Appoint Substitute Counsel was 

therefore withdrawn.

On January 8, 2018, [Attorney] Lang filed a request for an 

extension of 90 days within which to file an amended PCRA 

petition. The request was based on [Appellant’s] case being 

reassigned to new conflict counsel as a result of the hiring of 

additional attorneys to serve as conflict counsel and the 

restructuring of conflict counsel duties. By order dated January 

12, 2018, the appointment of [Attorney] Lang was vacated and

Patrick J. McMenamin, Jr., Esquire, was appointed to represent 

[Appellant] in the PCRA proceedings.

On May 29, 2018, [Attorney] McMenamin filed a Post 

Conviction Relief Act No Merit Letter & Memorandum of Law 

Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley[4] (hereinafter “No Merit 

Letter”) and a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel. On June 4, 2018, 

[Appellant] filed a pro se motion for appointment of new PCRA 

counsel. On October 4, 2018, [Attorney] McMenamin was directed 

to file a supplemental no merit letter and memorandum of law or 

an amended PCRA petition within 90 days of the order to address 

[Appellant’s] search warrant claims in light of the Supreme Court 

decision in Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 164 A.3d 1133 (Pa. 

2017). On January 4, 2019, [Attorney] McMenamin filed a Post 

Conviction Relief Act Supplemental No Merit Letter &

____________________________________________

4 See Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en 

banc). See also Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988).
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 7 -

Memorandum of Law Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley

("Supplemental No Merit Letter") and a motion to withdraw.

On July 12, 2019, a video hearing was held at which time 

[Appellant] was advised of [the PCRA c]ourt’s intent to dismiss his 

PCRA Petition. He was advised that he would be given 20 days to 

respond, that he could proceed pro se or with privately retained 

counsel and that an extension of the time to file a response would 

be granted upon request. He was further advised that the 

exhibits/documents [he] sent to PCRA counsel would be returned 

to him for his use in preparing a response. Written Notice of intent

to Dismiss was filed of record on July 15, 2019 and PCRA counsel 

was granted leave to withdraw.

On July 18, 2019, [Appellant] filed a petition requesting a 

120-day extension within which to file his response[, which was 

granted by the PCRA court ─ thus, his response was due by 

November 18, 2019.] On August 28, 2019, [Attorney]

McMenamin filed a Certification of Compliance verifying that all 

documents received from prior counsel and/or [Appellant] as well 

as copies of all of the notes of testimony had been sent to 

[Appellant]. [However, Appellant later advised the PCRA court] 

that several items were missing from the documents he had been

provided[, and, thus, he requested another extension of time to 

file his response. The trial court scheduled a video hearing for

December 12th, at which time Appellant] acknowledged that he 

received two boxes of documents from [Attorney] McMenamin but 

asserted that certain documents were missing. [The court 

directed Appellant, within two weeks of the hearing,] to file of

record a list of the documents that had previously been provided 

in discovery but which had not been included in the materials

forwarded to him[.] The Commonwealth was directed to file a 

response within two weeks of receipt of [Appellant’s] request[, 

and Appellant] was granted 60 days from the date of the hearing 

to file his response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. 

On January 2, 2020, [Appellant] filed a list of the documents 

he was requesting. The Commonwealth did not file a response. 

On March 3, 2020, the Commonwealth was directed to file a 

response on or before May 4, 2020. On March 12, 2020, the 

Commonwealth filed its Answer identifying those items of original 

discovery that would be reproduced and provided to [Appellant]

and those items that were not part of original discovery and/or 

were not in possession of the Commonwealth. 
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 8 -

On May 14, 2020, [Appellant] file[d] a petition seeking to 

obtain documents he alleged the [Commonwealth] agreed to 

produce but which had not been provided to him. He also advised 

[the c]ourt that the notes of testimony from the December 12, 

2019 hearing had not been transcribed. On June 10, 2020, an 

order directing the notes of testimony be transcribed was entered.

On July 1, 2020, the [Commonwealth] filed a Certification of 

Compliance . . . verifying that the materials [it] agreed to 

reproduce had been reproduced and sent to [Appellant]. 

[Appellant responded on July 6th, which] confirmed that he 

received a box of material from the [Commonwealth] but alleged 

that the information provided was incomplete. On July 20, 2020, 

[he requested another] extension to respond to the Notice of 

Intent to Dismiss[, which the PCRA court denied on October 8, 

2020. Appellant] was given until October 22, 2020 to file a 

response.

On October 30, 2020, [Appellant requested] a further 

extension based upon his alleged failure to receive the discovery 

items he requested and upon his limited access to the resources 

required to prepare a response as a result of the restrictions 

imposed by the Department of Corrections during the COVID-19 

pandemic. Based upon [Appellant’s] limited access to resources 

during the pandemic, [he] was granted until March 31, 2021 to 

file his response. On March 23, 2021, [Appellant] filed a written 

request for additional time[,] again relying on his limited access 

to the resources . . . as a result of the restrictions imposed . . . 

during the pandemic. By order dated March 26, 2021, [Appellant] 

was granted until June 30, 2021 to file his response. [Appellant’s] 

subsequent requests for an extension beyond June 30, 2021 . . .

were . . . denied.

PCRA Ct. Op. at 1-3, 17-22 (record citations & footnotes omitted; some 

paragraph breaks added).

Appellant filed an objection to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice on July 

1, 2021.

5

 Thereafter, on July 23rd, the court entered an order denying 

____________________________________________

5 Although the document is date-stamped July 6, 2021, the postmarked 

envelope in which the document was mailed bears a date stamp of July 1, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 9 -

Appellant’s PCRA petition. It merits mention that throughout the proceedings, 

and on direct appeal, both Appellant and the PCRA court listed all five docket 

numbers on each filing. The court’s July 23, 2021, order denying relief 

informed Appellant that he had “thirty (30) days from the date of [that] order 

to file an appeal to the Superior Court.” Order, 7/23/21 (emphasis added).

Appellant initially filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court, which 

was forwarded to the PCRA court on August 30th. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4) 

(“If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in an appellate court, . . . the clerk 

shall immediately stamp it with the date of receipt and transmit it to the clerk 

of the court which entered the order appealed from, and . . . the notice of 

appeal shall be deemed filed in the trial court on the date originally filed.”).

That notice of appeal ─ docketed in this Court at 1765 EDA 2021 ─ listed all 

five trial court docket numbers.6 See Notice of Appeal, 8/30/21.

On October 25, 2021, this Court issued Appellant a per curiam rule to 

show cause concerning two issues. First, because the notice of appeal was 

date-stamped as received in the PCRA court on August 30, 2021, we directed 

____________________________________________

2021. “Under the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem a pro se document filed on 

the date it is placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.” 

Commonwealth v. Crawford, 17 A.3d 1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

Although the reply was still untimely filed, it is evident the PCRA court excused 

the untimely filing and considered the document in disposing of Appellant’s 

petition. See Order, 7/23/21 (noting that, in denying relief, court considered 

Appellant’s PCRA petition, counsel’s no merit letter, and Appellant’s reply to 

the Rule 907 notice). 

6 The PCRA court did not direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal.
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 10 -

Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely

filed from the July 23, 2021, order denying PCRA relief. See Order, 10/25/21. 

Second, we directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 

quashed in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in 

Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), overruled in

part, Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021), which 

held that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one 

docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case.” Id. at 971. 

Appellant filed a timely response, asserting that he did not receive the 

court’s order in a timely manner but “did [his] best to respond in 30 days,” 

and requesting an extension of time to file “a proper appeal for each docket.” 

See Appellant’s Reply to Order dated 10-25-21, 11/3/21, at 1 (unpaginated). 

By order entered November 8, 2021, this Court referred the issues to the 

merits panel, and informed Appellant that he would have to file an application 

for relief separate from his response. See Order, 11/8/21. The appeal at 

Docket 1765 EDA 2021 was later dismissed when Appellant failed to file a 

brief, but then reinstated upon his application for relief. See Order, 4/13/22.

Meanwhile, on December 2, 2021, Appellant filed five separate notices 

of appeal, one for each trial court docket.

7

 See Notices of Appeal, 12/2/21, 

____________________________________________

7 Appellant, once again, improperly filed these notices of appeal in the 

Superior Court, rather than the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4). Thus, 

while they are date-stamped as received on December 7, 2021, we refer to 

the date they were forwarded to the trial court by the Superior Court ─ 

December 2, 2021 ─ as the date of filing. See id.
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 11 -

in the Superior Court. Once again, this Court forwarded the notices of appeal 

to the PCRA court. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4). They were subsequently

docketed in this Court at 2548-2552 EDA 2021. On March 23, 2022, this Court 

issued a per curiam rule at each docket number, directing Appellant to show 

cause why the appeals should not be quashed as untimely filed. Appellant 

filed five identical responses on April 11, 2022, insisting that he originally filed 

the notices of appeal in a timely manner. See Appellant’s Responses to Show 

Cause, 4/11/22, at 1-2 (unpaginated). On April 21, 2022, this Court referred 

the issue to the merits panel. See Orders, 4/21/22. Finally, on May 16, 2022, 

this Court consolidated the five appeals docketed at 2548-2552 EDA 2021,

ordered that those appeals shall be listed consecutively to the appeal docketed 

at 1765 EDA 2021, and directed the parties to file one consolidated brief listing 

all six docket numbers. Order, 5/16/22. 

Appellant presents the following questions for our review:

1) Was [Appellant] denied due process & ineffective assistance of 

counsel, when misstatement, omissions, & assertions of 

material facts were allowed to stand as truth in warrants on 

[M]arch 16th to arrest [Appellant] and search and seize 

property from . . . Penn Valley Road . . . also in violation of 

[Appellant’s] 4th and 14th amendments? Causing an unlawful 

arrest and search on March 17th 2011?

2) Was [Appellant] denied due process & his constitutional rights 

to a fair trial, when [the trial court] denied a request for 

continuance by [Appellant] (pre trial) without applying any of 

the factors listed in [Commonwealth v. Prysock, 972 A.2d 

539 (Pa. Super. 2009)?]

3) Was [Appellant] denied due process and a fair trial through 

prosecutorial misconduct . . . throughout the entire case?
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 12 -

4) Was [Appellant] denied effective assistance of counsel by 

[K]evin [W]ray, [Esquire,] through his handling on[e] case for 

over a year?

5) Does [Appellant] prove ineffective assistance of counsel for 

pretrial, trial, post trial and [PCRA] counsel with prior 

arguments?

6) Was [Appellant] denied effective assistance when trial counsel 

failed to file [an] alibi defense?

7) Was [Appellant] denied his right to be present and help in his 

defense due to side effects caused by medication 

([Zyprexa])[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unpaginated).8

Before we consider the claims raised on appeal, we must first address 

the appealability and Walker issues identified in this Court’s show cause 

orders. Considering first the appeal at Docket 1765 EDA 2021, we note that 

a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days “after entry of the order from 

which the appeal is taken.” See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). The PCRA court denied 

Appellant’s petition on July 23, 2021. Thus, his notice of appeal was due by 

August 23, 2021.9 Although Appellant (incorrectly) filed the notice of appeal 

in this Court on August 26, 2021, the envelope for the mailing bears a postage 

stamp date of August 23, 2021; thus, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, 

____________________________________________

8 We have corrected Appellant’s spelling and omitted unnecessary 

punctuation. We also note, with disapproval, Appellant’s lengthy brief is 

unpaginated. Thus, we refer to the page numbers of the electronic version of 

the brief, which designates the cover page as page one.

9 The thirtieth day for filing a timely notice of appeal ─ August 22, 2021 ─ fell 

on a Sunday; therefore, Appellant had until Monday, August 23rd to file a 

timely notice of appeal. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (when the last day of a time 

period falls on a weekend, that day shall be omitted from computation).
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 13 -

we consider that to be the date of filing. See Crawford, 17 A.3d at 1281; 

Pa.R.A.P. 121(f). Accordingly, Appellant’s notice of appeal at Docket 1765 

EDA 2021 was timely filed. 

We also directed Appellant to address the fact that the notice of appeal,

docketed at 1765 EDA 2021, listed all five trial court docket numbers in 

contravention of the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker. We note, however, 

that the Supreme Court subsequently overruled Walker, in part, in its 

decision in Young. The Young Court reaffirmed that Pa.R.A.P. 341 requires 

separate notices of appeal when a single order resolves issues under more 

than one docket, but held that, “where a timely appeal is erroneously filed at 

only one docket, [Pa.R.A.P.] 902 permits the appellate court, in its discretion, 

to allow correction of the error, where appropriate.” Young, 265 A.3d at 477

(footnote omitted).

Here, Appellant attempted to remedy the defect in his August 23, 2021, 

notice of appeal by filing five separate notices of appeal ─ one for each trial 

court docket ─ on December 2, 2021. These appeals are docketed at 2548-

2552 EDA 2021. However, he did so without obtaining permission from this 

Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 902 (“Failure of an appellant to take any step other than 

the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, 

but it is subject to such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, 

which may include, but is not limited to, remand of the matter to the lower 

court so that the omitted procedural step may be taken.”) (emphasis added).
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 14 -

Nevertheless, we note that this Court may overlook an appellant’s 

failure to comply with Walker when “a breakdown occurs in the court system, 

and a defendant is misinformed or misled regarding his appellate rights.” 

Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 354 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). 

In Larkin, as in the present case, the PCRA court misinformed the appellant 

that he had thirty days “from the date of [the] order to file an appeal.” See 

id. (citation omitted). See also Order, 7/23/21. Therefore, because 

Appellant was also misinformed as to his requirement to file more than one 

notice of appeal, we conclude a breakdown in the court system occurred and 

we decline to quash his appeal docketed 1765 EDA 2021.

Our ruling, however, renders Appellant’s appeals docketed at 2548-

2552 EDA 2021 superfluous. Indeed, Appellant only filed those notices of 

appeal in an attempt to comply with Walker. Because we conclude 

Appellant’s original notice of appeal was sufficient, we quash the appeals 

docketed at 2548-2552 EDA 2021 as moot.

We now proceed to the issues raised on appeal. Our review of an order 

denying PCRA relief is well-established. “[W]e examine whether the PCRA 

court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal 

error.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277, 1283–84 (Pa. 2016) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Furthermore,

[A] petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of 

right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no 

genuine issue concerning any material fact and the petitioner is 

not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no purpose 

would be served by any further proceedings. A reviewing court 
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 15 -

on appeal must examine each of the issues raised in the PCRA 

petition in light of the record in order to determine whether the 

PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues 

of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary 

hearing. 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049, 1052 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations 

& quotation marks omitted).

Preliminarily, we are compelled to address the substantial defects in 

Appellant’s pro se brief. It is well-established that appellate briefs “must 

conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the defect in the 

brief is substantial.” Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. 

Super. 2017) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs and 

reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the 

requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular 

case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in 

the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal 

or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”). Moreover, while “this Court 

is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se

appellant enjoys no special benefit[,]” and is required to comply with the Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d at 804 (citation omitted).

Here, at first glance, Appellant’s brief appears to conform to the Rules. 

He includes a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the scope and standard 
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 16 -

of review, the order in question,10 a statement of the questions presented, 

and a statement of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(5); 2114-2117. See 

also Appellant’s Brief at 4-9 (unpaginated). However, Appellant fails to 

present a summary of his arguments, or divide the arguments in his brief in 

any discernable manner. See Pa.R.A.P. 2118, 2119(a). Rather, the 

remainder of his brief consists of 209 pages of disjointed, rambling “argument” 

─ presented in an incoherent manner ─ interspersed with copies of various 

exhibits and transcripts. See Appellant’s Brief at 10-219. From what we can 

discern, Appellant contends that either the Commonwealth, the police or his 

victims fabricated evidence which led to several “illegal” searches, and that 

the search warrants contained misstatements and omissions. See id. at 13-

16, 59-66, 102-06. Appellant also challenges the chain of custody of various 

items recovered during execution of the warrants and raises allegations of 

prosecutorial misconduct. See id. at 67-77. Lastly, Appellant insists the PCRA 

court exhibited “judicial bias” by denying a continuance request and 

disregarding the effect his medication had on his ability to assist in his 

defense. See id. at 210-16. Our review reveals little reference to Appellant’s 

purported ineffectiveness claims save for his bald assertion that “all issues 

____________________________________________

10 Appellant, however, incorrectly identifies the order on appeal as issued by 

the PCRA court on October 25, 2021. See Appellant’s Brief at 6 

(unpaginated). That is the date the PCRA court issued its opinion; the order 

on appeal was entered on July 23, 2021. 
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 17 -

raised in this brief should have been previously raised by counsel.” Id. at 76

(capitalization omitted).

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 requires that the 

argument section in a brief “be divided into as many parts as there are 

questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part . . . the 

particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of 

authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The brief Appellant

has presented to this Court fails to present any coherent argument concerning

the issues identified in his Statement of the Questions, and provides little, if

any, citation to relevant statutory authority or case law. See Appellant’s Brief 

at 7 (unpaginated). For this reason, we conclude his claims are waived on 

appeal. 

We note, however, that the PCRA issued a 67-page opinion on October 

25, 2021, in which it addressed the “50 claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel” Appellant presented in his pro se petition. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 27. 

The court provided a detailed and thorough analysis of Appellant’s claims, 

such that, were we to conclude his arguments were not waived, we would rest 

on the PCRA court’s opinion. See id. at 34-67. Accordingly, we direct that 

a copy of the PCRA court’s October 25, 2021, opinion be filed along with this 

memorandum, and attached to any future filings of this memorandum.
J-A21043-22

J-A21044-22

- 18 -

Order affirmed. Appellant’s Application for Relief is denied as moot.11 

 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2023

____________________________________________

11 On December 3, 2022, Appellant filed an application for relief seeking to 

“reopen this case to review [his b]rief.” See Appellant’s Application for Relief, 

12/2/22. Appellant apparently misread a docket sheet and believed his appeal 

was still dismissed for his failure to file a brief. See id. However, as noted 

supra, the appeal was later reinstated. Thus, his claim is moot.