J-A04034-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

WILLIAM ANSELL,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 983 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 21, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-SA-0000460-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 17, 2015

William Ansell (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered May 21, 2014, following his conviction for two summary parking 

violations. Upon review, we dismiss the appeal.

On December 30, 2013, Appellant was issued two traffic citations for 

parking his vehicle in a no parking zone on Fairley Road, Ross Township, on 

December 6, 2013, and December 8, 2013. Appellant was found guilty of 

these parking violations by the magisterial district judge and, following a de 

novo hearing on his summary appeal, the trial court also found Appellant 

guilty of both offenses. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial 

court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of the errors complained 

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and one was filed. The trial 

court then filed its 1925(a) opinion.
J-A04034-15

- 2 -

On appeal, Appellant attempts to present a variety of claims for our 

consideration. We note, however, that Appellant’s pro se brief is, in large 

part, rambling and incoherent, and it does not comply with the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. Among other violations, Appellant’s brief does not 

contain a copy of Appellant’s concise statement of the matters complained of 

on appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11), (d). Appellant’s statement 

of the case contains argument and does not provide “a balanced 

presentation of the history of the proceedings and the respective contentions 

of the parties” in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2117(b). Moreover, Appellant does 

not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(9)’s requirement to include a “short 

conclusion stating the precise relief sought,” as Appellant’s “conclusion” is 

over one single-spaced page long and provides references to exhibits 

attached to the brief1along with accompanying argument. 

The most problematic aspect of Appellant’s brief, however, is its failure 

to provide developed arguments in support of any of the issues Appellant 

apparently wants this Court to address. Pa.R.A.P. 2119. The brief’s 

argument section is entirely devoid of any citations to legal authority or the 

record and is not divided into distinct claims in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a)-(c). Instead, Appellant presents approximately 7 1⁄2 pages of 

 

1 These exhibits were not made part of the certified record and, accordingly, 

this Court may not consider them. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 868 

A.2d 582, 593 (Pa. Super. 2005) (providing that “this Court may not 

consider anything that is not part of the certified record”).
J-A04034-15

- 3 -

single-spaced narrative, mostly dedicated to a chronicling of events 

stemming from what appears to be a longstanding dispute between 

Appellant and Ross Township over Appellant’s Christmas display. 

Rule 2101 grants us the authority to dismiss an appeal when the 

defects in a brief are substantial. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. The fact that Appellant is 

pro se does not excuse his failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (“[A] pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in 

the Pennsylvania Rules of ... Court.”) While “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.” Id. at 251-52. Nor does it entitle him 

to have this Court advocate on his behalf. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 

A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996). “When issues are not properly raised 

and developed in briefs, [and] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to 

present specific issues for review[, this] Court will not consider the merits 

thereof.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 

(Pa. Super. 1982)).
J-A04034-15

- 4 -

The defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial2and, therefore, 

preclude this Court from engaging in meaningful appellate review. For this 

reason, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/17/2015

 

2 We observe that Appellant’s concise statement of the errors complained of 

on appeal also fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and serves only to 

hinder further our ability to discern the issues on appeal.