J-S28031-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RONALD LEE FLEMING, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 382 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0000214-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED: AUGUST 26, 2022

Appellant, Ronald Lee Fleming, Jr., appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, following the 

revocation of his probation. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows:

This case has its origins in Appellant’s guilty plea to one 

count of institutional vandalism on August 17, 2020. 

Pursuant to agreement, Appellant received a sentence of 12 

months’ probation, which was to run consecutive to any 

other sentences Appellant was serving. This [c]ourt also 

ordered Appellant to pay restitution and costs. As 

conditions of his sentence, Appellant was required to refrain 

from (1) violating the law and (2) engaging in any assaultive 

behavior that threatened or presented a danger to himself 

or others.

Less than four months later, Appellant engaged in conduct 

that led to the revocation of his probation. On January 15, 
J-S28031-22

- 2 -

2021, Appellant was arrested on suspicion of DUI; during 

his arrest, Appellant damaged the Trooper’s patrol vehicle. 

Consequently, Appellant received new criminal charges, 

including DUI and institutional vandalism. In addition, on 

January 19, 2021, the Adams County Department of 

Probation Services (hereinafter “DPS”) filed a motion to 

revoke Appellant’s probation on the ground that Appellant’s 

conduct violated the terms of his probation. DPS also 

detained Appellant due to these violations. After a Gagnon 

I hearing on February 26, 2021, the hearing officer found 

probable cause that Appellant had violated his probation. 

Appellant’s Gagnon II hearing initially was scheduled for 

March 30, 2021, but the [c]ourt continued the hearing at 

Appellant’s request pending disposition of Appellant’s 

outstanding criminal charges.

Appellant caused further procedural delays by filing pro se

motions while represented by counsel; on September 13, 

2021, [following Appellant’s motion to proceed pro se,] the

[c]ourt granted Appellant permission to proceed pro se after 

conducting a colloquy with Appellant. 

After a Gagnon II hearing on September 28, 2021, the 

[c]ourt found that the Commonwealth had presented 

sufficient evidence to support the Motion for Revocation and 

the Amended Violation Report[, which had been amended 

based on additional misconduct and new charges incurred 

while Appellant was incarcerated in the Adams County 

Prison]. On November 29, 2021, this [c]ourt sentenced

Appellant to one to two years’ imprisonment in a State 

correctional institution. Appellant [timely filed a notice of 

appeal on December 27, 20211]. On March 2, 2022, this 

[c]ourt directed Appellant to file a Concise Statement of 

Matters Complained of on Appeal; Appellant complied on

____________________________________________

1 Appellant initially filed a timely notice of appeal on December 27, 2021, but 

it was returned to him for failure to pay the filing fee. Appellant filed a second 

notice of appeal on February 22, 2022. The record confirms Appellant is 

indigent and is designated as in forma pauperis status. Under these 

circumstances, we will consider Appellant’s appeal as timely filed on December 

27, 2021. See Pa.R.A.P. 902 (stating failure to take any step other than 

timely filing of notice of appeal will not affect validity of appeal but will be 

subject to such action as appellate court deems appropriate). 
J-S28031-22

- 3 -

March 14, 2022.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/25/22, at 1-2) (internal footnotes omitted).

Initially, we recognize:

[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially 

conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss an 

appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements 

set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials 

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

benefit upon the appellant. 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. 

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa.Super. 2005) 

(internal citations omitted). Additionally, “[this C]ourt will not become the 

counsel for an appellant, and will not, therefore, consider issues which are not 

fully developed in his brief.” Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 

(Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Instantly, Appellant’s brief fails to include the necessary statement of 

jurisdiction, relevant scope and standard of review, summary of the argument, 

and omits citation to any legal authority in the argument section. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (discussing required content of appellate briefs). In fact, 

the entirety of Appellant’s argument section states: “*(constitutional rights)—

No person shall be subject for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy 

of life or limb.” (Appellant’s Brief at unnumbered p. 6) (unnecessary 

capitalization omitted). Appellant’s failure to provide any meaningful 
J-S28031-22

- 4 -

argument on appeal renders his issues waived. See Gould, supra at 873 

(holding appellant waived issue on appeal where he failed to support it with 

relevant citations to case law and to record; “Because such an omission 

impedes on our ability to address the issue on appeal, an issue that is not 

properly briefed in this manner is considered waived”). Accordingly, we 

affirm. See In Interest of K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 934 A.2d 1244 (2007) 

(stating trial court’s order or judgment is more properly “affirmed,” when 

appellant has failed to preserve issues for appeal). 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/26/2022