J-S30027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

PEDRO LEON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1735 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 16, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001798-2023

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2024

Pedro Leon (“Leon”) appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence 

following his conviction by jury for criminal attempt to commit possession of 

a controlled substance.1 Following our review, we dismiss the appeal.

Based on our disposition, we need not discuss the factual and procedural 

history in depth. The Commonwealth charged Leon with criminal attempt to 

commit possession of a controlled substance. See Information, 6/26/23. 

Leon was appointed counsel from the public defender’s office, but he elected 

to proceed pro se for his jury trial, and the trial court permitted Leon to try 

his case pro se with the assigned public defender acting as standby counsel. 

See Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/24, at 2; Notice of Appeal, 12/22/23 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a) – 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
J-S30027-24

- 2 -

(unnumbered at 1) (Leon asserting he had “fired [his] lawyer”); Order, 

11/16/23 (noting Leon’s prior waiver of his right to counsel). The jury 

convicted Leon. See Recordation of Verdict, 10/26/23. The trial court later 

imposed a standard-guideline-range sentence of eleven-and-a-half to twentythree months of incarceration to be served consecutively to a sentence for an 

unrelated docket. See Commitment Authorization, 11/16/23; Guidelines, 

12/22/23. Leon filed a pro se post-sentence motion, which the trial court 

denied. See Post-Sentence Mot., 11/27/23; Order, 11/30/23. Leon timely 

appealed.

Before reaching the merits of Leon’s issues, we must consider whether 

the defects in his brief require dismissal of the appeal. Appellate briefs must 

materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, 

the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.” Id.; see also 

Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). This 

Court has stated:

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. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must 

comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania 

Rules of the Court. 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.

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) 
J-S30027-24

- 3 -

requires the inclusion of, inter alia, a statement of jurisdiction, the order or 

determination in question, the scope and standard of review, statement of 

questions involved, statement of the case, summary of the argument, and 

argument for the appellant. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Where issues 

are not properly raised and developed in briefs and the briefs are “wholly 

inadequate to present specific issues for review,” this Court will quash or 

dismiss the appeal. Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150-51 (Pa. 

Super. 1982). Indeed, while we are willing to construe liberally material filed 

by a pro se litigant, a “layperson choosing to represent [himself] in a legal 

proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack 

of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing.” Commonwealth v. 

Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) (internal citation, quotations, 

and brackets omitted).

Here, while Leon purports to raise six issues on appeal, see Leon’s Brief 

at 1, he fails to set forth in his two-page brief the standard and scope of 

review, statement of the case, summary of the argument, and any meaningful 

argument concerning his issues. See generally Leon’s Brief. These 

substantial deficiencies impede our ability to review this appeal. Therefore, 

we dismiss the appeal. See Freeland, 106 A.3d at 776-77; Sanford, 445 

A.2d at 150-51; Rivera, 685 A.2d at 1013.
J-S30027-24

- 4 -

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/2024