J-A25023-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSHUA M. SCHAEFFER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1038 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 30, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0001508-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.: FILED MAY 23, 2019

Joshua M. Schaeffer appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas following his conviction 

for possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Owing to the substantial defects in his 

brief, we dismiss the appeal.

Our resolution of this appeal renders a detailed recitation of the facts 

and procedural history unnecessary. Briefly, following a traffic stop, Appellant 

consented to a police search of his vehicle. In Appellant’s backpack, the 

officers found marijuana, hashish oil, rolling papers, and a blue straw with 

white powder residue. 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 
J-A25023-18

- 2 -

Appellant waived his right to the representation of counsel. He pled 

guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, and the court sentenced him to 

one year of probation. His timely, pro se appeal is now properly before us.2

The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the following 

guidelines regarding the content of an appellant’s brief:

Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant

(a) General Rule. The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise 

prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matters, 

separately and distinctly and in the following order:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.

(2) Order or other determination in question.

(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard 

of review.

(4) Statement of the questions involved.

(5) Statement of the case.

(6) Summary of argument.

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge 

the discretionary aspects of sentence, if applicable.

(8) Argument for appellant.

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions 

(b) and (c) of this rule.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s judgment of sentence was mistakenly listed on the docket as 

having been entered on November 30, 2017. Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence was in fact entered on January 4, 2018, making his filing of a pro se

notice of appeal on Monday, February 5, 2018, timely. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)

(timely notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days); see also 1 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 1908 (when the thirtieth day of an appeal period falls on Saturday or 

Sunday, that day shall be omitted from the timeliness computation).
J-A25023-18

- 3 -

(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant 

to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(11).

“Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects 

with the requirements of these rules ... 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.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “The argument portion 

of an appellate brief must be developed with a pertinent discussion of the 

point which includes citations to the relevant authority.” Commonwealth v. 

Genovese, 675 A.2d 331, 334 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations omitted). This 

Court is unable to review an appellant’s claims where he fails to include 

relevant citations to authority or legal discussion in his brief. See 

Commonwealth v. Russell, 665 A.2d 1239, 1246 (Pa. Super. 1995). 

Further, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials 

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

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 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. (citation omitted). 

The pro se brief Appellant submitted to this Court substantially fails to 

conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Absent are the 

required headings, statement of jurisdiction, or scope and standard of review. 
J-A25023-18

- 4 -

Appellant fails to present a single question for our review. His brief wholly 

lacks a cogent argument, much less citations to legal cases or the certified 

record. 

The substantial defects in Appellant’s brief prevent this Court from 

conducting any meaningful review of his claims.3 While we are sensitive to the 

fact that Appellant has chosen to proceed pro se, we decline to become his 

counsel. Having been deprived of our ability to review his claims by his 

noncompliant brief, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/23/19

____________________________________________

3 From what little we are able to discern, Appellant is troubled by the 

Commonwealth’s failure to introduce test results proving the substance 

discovered in Appellant’s car was marijuana. See Appellant’s Brief, at 3-4 

(unpaginated). However, Appellant pled guilty to possession of drug 

paraphernalia, not possession of marijuana. Moreover, Appellant himself 

admitted culpability to this crime as part of his plea – obviating the need for 

the Commonwealth to provide the type of evidence that would have been 

necessary to convict him in a trial. See Guilty Plea Colloquy, filed 1/4/18, at

2.