J. S 5 8 0 45 /1 8

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA v. : : MARK ELES , : No. 829 W DA 20 18 : Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence , E ntered May 2, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No. CP

- 02

- SA

- 0000276

- 2018

BEFORE: OLSON , J., MURRAY , J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2018 Mark C. Eles appeals pro se from the May 2, 2018 judgment of sentence of $2,430 in fines imposed after the trial court dismissed his summary appeal for failure to appear at the summary appeal hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D). 1 Appellant was found guilty by the magisterial d istrict court of violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1301 (registration and certification of title required), 2102 (display of license card required) , and 4921 (exceeding 8 feet
in width) on January 10, 2018. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal. 2

1 R ule 462(D) provides that, “ [i] f the defendant fails to appear, the trial judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the court of common pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority. ” Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 (D).

2 The Commonwealth has indicated that it will not be filing a formal brief in this matter.J. S 5 8 0 45 /1 8

- 2

-

App ellant’s “brief” to this court consists of a three

- paragraph explanation for his actions and is v irtually non

- compliant with the requirement s set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Ap pellate Procedure 2111(a). Sp ecifically, we observe that appellant’s brief contains no statement of jurisdiction, no specification of the order or determination sought to be reviewed, no statement of the scope or standard of review, no statement of the case, and no summary of the argument. Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)

- (3), (5)

- (6). Tel lingly, appellant’s brief also fails to set forth a specific statement of the questions involved nor provide s any di scernable substantive argument. See id. at 2111(a)(4). Appellant’s failure to include a statement of the questions involved is particularl y troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues this court is being asked to review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating, inter alia , that “the statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary que stion fairly comprised therein. No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby. ”). Moreover, appellant’s brief does not include any meaningful discussion of, or citatio n to, relevant legal authority. See Commonwealth v. John son , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) ( stating, “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived

. ”), c ert. denied , 562 U.S. 906 (2010).J. S 5 8 0 45 /1 8

- 3

-

Generally, parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs in conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of t he particular case wil l admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101

. “ Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no specia l benefit upon the appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Su per. 2005) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. ” Id. “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted), appeal denied , 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005)

. Given the substantial defects in appellant’s brief , we are preclude d from conducting any meaningful appellate review . Accordingly , we dismiss t his appeal. Appeal dismissed

.J. S 5 8 0 45 /1 8

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/30/2018