J-A05026-20

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BARRY J. MESLER,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1055 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 25, 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-53-SA-0000003-2019

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 31, 2020

Barry J. Mesler appeals from the judgment of sentence of a fine of $500 

imposed after he was found guilty of abandoning vehicles.1 We dismiss this 

appeal.

At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant placed 

junk vehicles on the lot of Charles Counts, an adjacent landowner, and refused 

to remove them despite notice to do so from the neighbor and authorities. 

Appellant proceeded on the defense that he had acquired the lot in question 

by adverse possession, but did not testify or otherwise support his claim with 

evidence. The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him in 

____________________________________________

1 See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3712(b) (“No person shall abandon a vehicle upon any 

public or private property without the express or implied consent of the owner 

or person in lawful possession or control of the property.”). 
J-A05026-20

- 2 -

accordance with 75 Pa.C.S. § 3712(c)(1) (mandating sentence of “a fine of 

$500 plus all costs of disposing of the vehicle” for a first-time offender). 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s one-page brief

states the following:

1. Defendant did not waive a JURY TRIAL.

2. Judge Minor used a PROXY.

3. Chief Phelps upon cross stated first time he talked to the 

defendant the defendant was mowing the grass on the property 

in the complaint also all the photoes [sic] as entered clearly show 

the grass had been mowed proving nothing was abandoned also 

proves the defendant[’]s attempt to quiet [M]r[.] Counts[’s] title.

Therefore the defendant request to set aside the verdict or 

grant a new trial.

Appellant’s brief at 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a 

pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit.” Commonwealth 

v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super. 2017). “[A] pro se litigant must 

comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the 

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

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Any 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. Gray, 608 A.2d 534, 550 (Pa. Super. 1992) (cleaned up). 

Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as 

required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). His brief also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 
J-A05026-20

- 3 -

2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) 

(requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) 

(requiring an argument section). The brief further is devoid of citations to the 

record or to any legal authority as are required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b), 

respectively. 

Appellant’s complete disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has 

left this Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa. Super. 1982) (declining 

to address merits of appeal because the brief was “so defective as to preclude 

effective, appellate review”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without 

considering its merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (“If the appellant fails to take 

the action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial 

Administration for the preparation of the transcript, the appellate court may 

take such action as it deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the 

appeal.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced 

record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may 

be . . . dismissed.”). 

Appeal dismissed. 
J-A05026-20

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/31/2020