J-S17015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MANSOOR VIQAR SAYYED 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1393 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022

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

No(s): CP-02-SA-0001014-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 1, 2023

Mansoor Viqar Sayyed appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence, 

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his 

summary conviction for disorderly conduct.1 We quash.

The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as 

follows:

[Sayyed] filed a summary appeal from a conviction in the 

Magisterial District Court for disorderly conduct[.] 

During the de novo hearing of November 4, 2022, Officer Carl 

Rech, with the Brentwood Police Department, testified that while 

he was off duty, he witnessed [Sayyed] outside the public library 

urinating on a tree with children and adults nearby. He informed 

Brentwood Police Officer Davidson, who was on duty, what he had 

witnessed. Officer Davidson issued a summons to [Sayyed].

[Sayyed] argued that he has a medical condition and needed to 

relieve himself immediately or he would have had an accident. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).
J-S17015-23

- 2 -

However, Officer Davidson testified that [Sayyed] was 25 or 30 

feet from the library and could have used the public bathroom in 

the library’s lobby. 

This court found [Sayyed] guilty following a de novo hearing on 

November 4, 2022, imposed a fine of $100.00, and waived the 

costs. [Sayyed] filed a timely [pro se] appeal to the Pennsylvania 

Superior Court on November 28, 2022. This court ordered 

[Sayyed] to file a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [concise] statement of []

errors complained of on appeal on December 2, 2022, which was 

filed on December 19, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/20/23, at [1-2] (paragraphs reordered; citations to 

record and unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Sayyed raises the following claim in his statement of the questions 

involved: “Whether [Sayyed’s] sentencing, pursuant to the hearing[,] was 

lawful or not is the question[,] especially concerning his disability[,] as the 

officer never knew or even asked him a reason at the time.” Brief of Appellant, 

at 3 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).

Prior to addressing the merits of Sayyed’s claim, we must determine 

whether it is waived. In its brief, the Commonwealth asks us to deny relief 

because Sayyed’s brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Specifically, the Commonwealth notes that Sayyed’s 

statement of the questions involved seemingly purports to raise a 

sentencing claim. However, this “question” is inconsistent with 

[Sayyed’s] “argument[,” which] is an alphabetical list of 

grievances with those involved with his case[,] including the court, 

the prosecutor, and the police officers. [Sayyed] also includes 

some personal information that he apparently believes provides a 

basis for relief.

Brief of Appellee, at 8 (citations and unnecessary capitalization omitted). The 

Commonwealth further notes that Sayyed also fails to develop any argument, 
J-S17015-23

- 3 -

with citation to the record or pertinent authority, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a), and that his argument “contains nothing more than an inventory of 

purported facts presented in the light most favorable to him.” Id. at 9. We 

agree.

 Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court 

may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with the 

requirements set forth in those rules. Id.; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 

A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003). Although this Court is willing to liberally construe 

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit 

upon an appellant. Lyons, 883 A.2d at 251-52. To the contrary, any person 

choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding “must, to some reasonable 

extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove 

[his] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 

1996) (citation omitted).

Because Sayyed’s brief is nothing more than, as the Commonwealth 

observes, “an inventory of purported facts presented in the light most 

favorable to him,” it does not “allow us to clearly define what[,] exactly[,] 

[Sayyed’s] point of controversy is.” Id. Accordingly, we are unable to conduct 

meaningful appellate review and are constrained to quash the appeal. 

Appeal quashed.
J-S17015-23

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2023