J-S60012-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SANTO BORRERO-BEJERANO

Appellant No. 451 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0003523-2009

BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2015

Santo Borrero-Bejerano appeals pro se from the order entered in the 

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, dated February 11, 2014, 

dismissing his first petition filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”),1 without a hearing. Borrero-Bejerano was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of 100 to 200 months’ imprisonment imposed on July 8, 

2011, following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of 

delivery of cocaine and one count of possession with intent to deliver 

cocaine.

2

 On appeal, he raises ten issues concerning PCRA and appellate 

____________________________________________

1

 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

2

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S60012-14

- 2 -

court error, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on the 

following, we dismiss the appeal. 

The facts underlying Borrero-Bejerano’s convictions are well known to 

the parties, and have been fully discussed in our decision filed in connection 

with the direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Borrero-Bejerano, 46 

A.3d 830 [1255 MDA 2011] (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum at 

1-2). Therefore, we need only state that Borrero-Bejerano’s convictions 

arose out of a drug transaction on June 19, 2009, in which he sold cocaine 

to a confidential informant. 

The PCRA court set forth the procedural history as follows:

On May 17, 2011, a jury found [Borrero-Bejerano] guilty of one 

count of delivery of cocaine and one count of possession with 

intent to deliver cocaine. On July 8, 2011, [Borrero-Bejerano] 

was sentenced to an aggregate of 100 to 200 months[’] 

imprisonment. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the 

judgment of sentence on February 28, 2012. 

[Borrero-Bejerano] filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 17, 

2012. Counsel was appointed, who filed a motion to withdraw 

on July 23, 2012. Because counsel did not address every issue 

[Borrero-Bejerano] raised in his pro se petition, the motion to 

withdraw was denied without prejudice on December 31, 2012. 

Counsel then filed a “Motion for Court Order Pursuant to 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5742” to obtain [Borrero-Bejerano]’s phone records 

in preparation for filing an Amended PCRA Petition, which was 

granted on March 20, 2013.

On April 30, 2013, counsel filed an Amended PCRA 

Petition, which was denied without prejudice because it was not 

accompanied with evidence that he contemporaneously served 

[Borrero-Bejerano] with a copy of the petition, no-merit letter, 

and a statement advising that if the trial court granted the 

petition to withdraw, the defendant had the right to proceed pro 

se or with privately retained counsel. See Commonwealth v. 
J-S60012-14

- 3 -

Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 614 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. 

Lasky, 934 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 2007). Before the Amended 

PCRA Petition was denied without prejudice, however, the 

Commonwealth filed an Answer.

Counsel then filed a Second Amended PCRA Petition on 

September 23, 2013, which was granted in part by Order dated 

November 26, 2013. [Borrero-Bejerano] was given eight days of 

time credit, and the remaining claims were to be dismissed by 

the Court [pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907]. [The court also 

granted counsel’s right to withdraw.] By Order dated February 

11, 2013, this Court denied [Borrero-Bejerano]’s remaining 

claims.

PCRA Court Opinion, April 14, 2014, at 1-2 (footnote omitted). This appeal 

followed.3

Borrero-Bejerano raises ten questions for our review:

Whether the PCRA court abuse[d] it’s [sic] discretion by not 

finding that the trial attorney who would not put forth the 

entrapment defense is ineffective.

Whether the PCRA court abuse[d] it’s [sic] discretion by finding 

that the trial attorney is not ineffective by not filing [a] Rule 600 

[motion] when ask[ed] to.

Whether the PCRA court abuse[d] it’s [sic] discretion by not 

finding that the trial attorney is ineffective by not filing a 

suppress[ion] motion or otherwise quash the search warrant.

Whether the PCRA/Trial court erred by allowing the trial attorney 

to continue with the trial after [Borrero-Bejerano] told the court 

that the trial attorney refusing [sic] to put forth the entrapment 

defense.

____________________________________________

3

 On March 12, 2014, the PCRA court ordered Borrero-Bejerano to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). Borrero-Bejerano filed a concise statement on March 27, 2014. 

The PCRA court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on April 14, 

2014.
J-S60012-14

- 4 -

Whether the PCRA court abuse[d] it’s [sic] discretion or erred by 

prohibiting [Borrero-Bejerano] to file his own direct appeal and 

keep the ineffective trial attorney who would not properly 

question the Affiant having a search warrant for a totally 

different address.

Not [sic] the PCRA court abused it’s [sic] discretion by not 

finding that the trial attorney is ineffective by refusing to file the 

trial court [o]rder.

Not [sic] the PCRA court abuse[d] it’s [sic] discretion and erred 

by not finding the trial attorney ineffective by not objecting to 

the [C]ommonwealth trying to use [Borrero-Bejerano’s] over 20-

Year record to predispose [Borrero-Bejerano] during trial.

Whet[h]er the [S]uperior [C]ourt erred by allowing the trial 

attorney to withdraw during the direct appeal since there is no 

such thing as no merit issue during direct appeal and further 

where it was [a] suppressible issue that the trial attorney did not 

supres[s].

Not [sic] the PCRA court abused it’s [sic] discretion and erred by 

accepting the appoint[ed] PCRA attorney to withdraw when the 

PCRA appoint[ed] attorney should h[a]ve been looking for 

additional issues such as the error of the [S]uperior [C]ourt 

allowing the trial attorney to withdraw from the direct appeal 

when there was suppressible issue[s] that the trial attorney 

never suppress[ed].

Not [sic] the PCRA court abused it’s [sic] discretion and erred by 

after the trial court bec[a]me [aware] of the violation of the 

United State[s] Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution 

and the PCRA court still would not act on the violations of the 

Constitution when the PCRA court is obliged to act on.

Borrero-Bejerano’s Brief at 2-3.

Our standard and scope of review for the denial of a PCRA petition is 

well-settled:

[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of fact to 

determine whether they are supported by the record, and 
J-S60012-14

- 5 -

reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free 

from legal error. The scope of review is limited to the findings of 

the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level.

Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1018-19 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citation omitted).

Preliminarily, we observe that Borrero-Bejerano’s pro se brief fails to 

comply with the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

insofar as it does not comport with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Rule 2119(a) 

provides:

(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many 

parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the 

head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively 

displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such 

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). See Borrero-Bejerano’s Brief at 31-46. Likewise, 

Borrero-Bejerano’s brief fails to conform with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(c), regarding reference to the record.4

____________________________________________

4

 Rule 2119(c) provides:

(c) Reference to record. If reference is made to the pleadings, 

evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter 

appearing in the record, the argument must set forth, in 

immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a 

reference to the place in the record where the matter referred to 

appears (see Rule 2132) (references in briefs to the record).

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). We note Borrero-Bejerano does point to exhibits that he 

has attached to his appellate brief but he fails to make reference to the 

certified record.
J-S60012-14

- 6 -

Furthermore, our review of the brief reveals that because there is no 

division of issues, it appears Borrero-Bejerano has abandoned some of his 

arguments, i.e., his claim that this Court erred in permitting trial counsel to 

withdraw on direct appeal. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that 

Borrero-Bejerano’s brief is rambling, disjointed, and often indecipherable.5 

Borrero-Bejerano largely focuses on his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims. However, he fails to develop his discussion regarding the three 

____________________________________________

5

 For example, as quoted directly from his brief, Borrero-Bejerano states, in 

support of one of his ineffectiveness claims, the following:

The reason why the Affiant made the carefully statement of the 

possibility that the Affiant possibly had met with the informant 

Gary Cort,z on previous occasion was because when the appoint 

trial attorney Grella had came to visit [Borrero-Bejerano] to tell 

[him] that she is not filing the motion to suppress the evidence 

or quash the [s]earch warrant since the trial attorney Wendy J.F. 

Grella wasn’t going to do the entrapment defence [BorreroBejerano] told the trial attorney Grella how possibly she would 

not suppress the evidence or quash the search warrant if trooper 

Scott Fidler had in all document that trooper Fidler had meet 

with the confidential informant on June 19/2009 when [BorreroBejerano] went to pick up the 13,000 dollars to get the drug at 

[Borrero-Bejerano]’s house.

Borrero-Bejerano’s Brief at 18-19.
J-S60012-14

- 7 -

prongs of the ineffective test,6as his arguments are mainly bald assertions 

with insufficient evidentiary support.7 

[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials 

filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no 

special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant 

must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or 

dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the 

requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal 

denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005) (some citations omitted). As such, we 

cannot serve as Borrero-Bejerano’s counsel and litigate his claims for him.

Because Borrero-Bejerano’s brief is substantially defective and fails to 

conform to the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are 

unable to conduct a meaningful review of the issues; therefore, we are 

compelled to dismiss this appeal.8 

Appeal dismissed with prejudice. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

6

 See Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398, 406 (Pa. Super. 2008).

7

 See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 412 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(failure to develop argument with citation to and analysis of relevant 

authority waives issue on appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).

8

 Although we find Borrero-Bejerano’s brief to be largely incomprehensible, 

to the extent that it addressed Borrero-Bejerano’s claims, the PCRA court 

opinion appears to adequately discuss and properly dispose of those issues. 

See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/14/2014, 2-5. Based upon that opinion, we 

conclude that even if Borrero-Bejerano had properly preserved his issues for 

our review, his current appeal would be without merit. 
J-S60012-14

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/14/2015