J-S07036-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

ARMONI JOHNSON, :

:

Appellant : No. 1396 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 28, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-40-CR-0000117-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 29, 2017

Armoni Johnson (“Johnson”), pro se, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence1entered following his conviction of possession of a controlled 

substance, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, 

delivery of a controlled substance and criminal use of a communication 

facility.2 We affirm.

Following a jury trial, Johnson was convicted of the above-described 

charges. On April 28, 2016, for his conviction of delivery of a controlled 

substance, the trial court sentenced Johnson to 19-90 months in prison. For 

 

1

Johnson filed his Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s August 2, 2016 

Order denying his post-sentence Motion. However, the appeal properly lies

from the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 

788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc) (stating that in a 

criminal action, an appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence,

made final by the denial of post-trial motions). We have corrected the 

caption accordingly.

2 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512.
J-S07036-17

- 2 -

his conviction of criminal use of a communication facility, the trial court 

sentenced Johnson to a consecutive prison term of 16-90 months. Johnson’s 

remaining convictions merged at sentencing.3 Johnson filed a pro se postsentence Motion, which the trial court denied on August 2, 2016. Johnson, 

pro se, timely filed a Notice of Appeal,

4

followed by a court-ordered 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. 

On October 18, 2016, in accordance with Commonwealth v. Grazier, 

713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), this Court remanded the matter for the trial court 

to conduct a hearing on Johnson’s intention to proceed pro se. Following the 

Grazier hearing, the trial court entered an Order finding that Johnson “has 

decided to proceed pro se in connection with his appeal[,] and this decision 

to waive counsel was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.” Trial 

Court Order, 10/31/16. 

 

3

Johnson received 187 days’ credit for time served.

4 On August 18, 2016, Johnson filed a pro se Notice of Appeal in the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court. This Court forwarded the Notice of Appeal to 

the common pleas court, where it was duly filed on August 23, 2016. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 905 (providing that if an appellant mistakenly filed a notice of 

appeal in an appellate court, the clerk of that court “shall immediately stamp 

it with the date of receipt and transmit it to the clerk of the court which 

entered the order appealed from, and upon payment of an additional filing 

fee[,] the notice of appeal shall be deemed filed in the trial court on the date 

originally filed.”). Regardless of the filing date, Johnson timely filed his 

Notice of Appeal.
J-S07036-17

- 3 -

After reviewing Johnson’s appellate brief, we are unable to discern the 

issues that Johnson wishes to raise on appeal. Johnson’s brief in no way 

conforms to our Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

The briefing requirements[,] scrupulously delineated in our 

appellate rules[,] are not mere trifling matters of stylistic 

preference; rather, they represent a studied determination by 

our Court and its rules committee of the most efficacious manner 

by which appellate review may be conducted so that a litigant’s 

right to judicial review ... may be properly exercised. Thus, we 

reiterate that compliance with these rules by appellate advocates 

... is mandatory.

Commonwealth v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829, 837-38 (Pa. 2014) (citation 

omitted). We recognize that Johnson appears before this Court pro se. 

However, 

[u]nder Pennsylvania law, pro se defendants are subject to the 

same rules of procedure as are represented defendants. See 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 586 Pa. 553, 896 A.2d 523, 534 

(Pa. 2006) (pro se defendants are held to same standards as 

licensed attorneys). Although the courts may liberally construe 

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

special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to 

become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se

submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading. 

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014). 

The trial court similarly was unable to discern, from Johnson’s 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement, the issues that Johnson sought to 

raise on appeal. As the trial court observed, Johnson’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

Concise Statement was “anything but concise.” Trial Court Opinion, 

10/12/16, at 2.
J-S07036-17

- 4 -

This case was presented as a relatively straight forward sale of 

heroin to a confidential informant. Upon review of the record, 

[the trial c]ourt is unable to discern any pre-trial, trial or 

sentencing errors. Having served as the [t]rial [j]udge in this 

matter, there is absolutely no hesitation in finding that the 

Commonwealth established the guilt of [Johnson] with regard to 

each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As he has done 

throughout the history of this proceeding, [Johnson] again 

attempts to obscure the facts of this case[,] which resulted in his 

conviction. He now frustrates this [c]ourt and the appellate 

process by filing a Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement which consists of 

fifty-one total pages. Clearly, [Johnson] has failed to raise his 

issues in accordance with Rule 1925(b)(4). Because [Johnson’s] 

[S]tatement is incoherent, redundant and confusing, meaningful 

review is prevented on any level[,] and the issues he attempts to 

raise are waived.

Id. at 3. 

We agree with the trial court’s assessment, and its conclusion that 

Johnson failed to preserve and waived any and all issues for appellate 

review. See id. at 2-3. We reach this conclusion based upon deficiencies in 

Johnson’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement and appellate brief. We 

therefore affirm Johnson’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/29/2017