J-A07045-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES WALLACE KENDALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 832 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2017

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

No(s): CP-28-CR-0001505-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 16, 2018

Appellant, James Wallace Kendall, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County following 

his conviction on the charges of simple assault, reckless endangerment of 

another person, and criminal mischief.1 After a careful review, we quash this 

appeal due to Appellant’s failure to file a brief that conforms in any meaningful 

manner to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant was 

convicted on the aforementioned charges, and on May 3, 2017, the trial court 

sentenced him to an aggregate of six months to twenty-three months in 

prison, to be followed by ninety days of probation. Appellant filed a timely 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701, 2705, and 3304, respectively. 
J-A07045-18

- 2 -

pro se appeal on May 16, 2017, and on June 5, 2017, Appellant filed in this 

Court a request for the assistance of counsel. 

By order entered on June 6, 2017, pursuant to Commonwealth v. 

Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1988), this Court remanded for the trial 

court to hold a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to proceed pro 

se or with the appointment of counsel. On June 14, 2017, after conducting 

an on-the-record colloquy, the trial court filed an order indicating: “It is hereby 

found that [Appellant] is in need of the assistance of counsel. The Court 

hereby appoints the Franklin County Public Defender’s Office to represent the 

interests of [Appellant] on appeal.” Trial Court Order, filed 6/14/17. 

On August 17, 2017, Appellant filed in this Court a pro se motion in 

which he objected to the appointment of counsel from the Franklin County 

Public Defender’s Office on the basis there was a “direct conflict of interest.” 

Accordingly, by order entered on October 2, 2017, this Court directed the trial 

court to hold a hearing to determine whether Appellant wished to proceed pro 

se, with current counsel, or, if appropriate, with new appointed counsel. See 

Commonwealth v. McAleer, 561 Pa. 129, 748 A.2d 670, 673 (2000) (noting 

right to counsel of one’s own choice is not absolute, but must be weighed 

against state’s interest in swift and efficient administration of criminal justice). 

We further directed that, if Appellant wished to proceed pro se, the trial court 

was to determine whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, 

intelligent, and voluntary pursuant to Grazier, supra. 
J-A07045-18

- 3 -

Following a hearing, by order entered on October 25, 2017, the trial 

court concluded that “[Appellant] wishes to proceed without representation 

from court appointed counsel and that said decision is knowing, intelligent and 

voluntary pursuant to the requirements of [Grazier, supra], [thus] it is 

hereby ordered that Chief Public Defender Ian Brink is relieved of his obligation 

to represent [Appellant].” Trial Court Order, filed 10/25/17. Thereafter, 

Appellant filed in this Court a pro se appellate brief.

As a prefatory matter, although 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. 

Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n. 1 (1993). 

Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural 

rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court. Id. 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. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa.Super. 2003).

The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines 

regarding the required content of an appellate brief as follows:

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 entitled 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.
J-A07045-18

- 4 -

(6) Summary of argument.

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

challenge the discretionary aspects of a 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.

(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) (bold in original). Further, Pa.R.A.P. 2116 entitled 

“Statement of Questions Involved” states:

(a) General rule. The statement of the questions involved must 

state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms 

and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. 

The statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary question 

fairly comprised therein. No question will be considered unless it 

is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly 

suggested thereby. . . .

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (bold in original). The omission of a statement of the 

questions involved is particularly grievous because it defines the specific 

issues this Court is asked to review. See Maris, supra.

In the case sub judice, Appellant’s brief falls well below the standard 

delineated in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In fact, aside from providing 

us with a docketing statement, as well as listing issues on what appears to be 
J-A07045-18

- 5 -

a standard form used for PCRA2 purposes, Appellant has presented this Court 

with no issues or arguments for review. Appellant’s failure to provide us with 

an appropriate brief has greatly impaired our ability to conduct meaningful 

appellate review. 

While we are not insensitive to the fact Appellant has chosen to proceed 

pro se, we decline to act as his counsel. See Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 

A.3d 870, 874 (Pa.Super. 2014). Accordingly, we quash this appeal for 

Appellant’s failure to comply in any meaningful manner with the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appeal Quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/16/2018

____________________________________________

2 Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.