J

- S04045

- 21

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN WESLEY PICKIN

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 954 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal

Division at No(s): CP

- 49

- CR

- 0001219

- 2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2021

John Wesley Pickin (“Pickin”) appeals

, pro se , from the judgment of

sentence entered following his guilty plea to disorderly conduct. 1 We dismiss

the appeal

.

T he trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history

as follows:

[On December 12, 2017,] [] Pickin was charged with [d]isorderly [c]onduct ([s]ummary [o]ffense) and [p]ublic [n]uisance ([m]isdemeanor 2) based on t he condi tion of a property he owned at [] N. Shamokin Street in the City of

S hamokin. It was alleged that the property had damaged, open

and non

- waterproof eaves, broken glass in the windows and doors, was littered with garbage and refuse, and the slate shingles were loose and in danger of falling off the roof.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).J

- S04045

- 21

- 2

- [] Pickin was sent enced on June 22, 2020[,] pursuant to a plea offer [,] where [in] [] Pickin [pled guilty to] the summary disorderly conduct charge [,] and the Commonwealth [ nolle prossed ] the misdemeanor 2 public nuisance charge. [] Pickin

... was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a twenty

- five ($25.00) dollar fine.

[] P ickin filed a [ pro se ] [N]otice of [A] ppeal on July 10, 2020. He responded to [the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [O]rder with a single

- page [handwritten] docume nt in narrative form. Throughout his narrative, [] Pickin confuses this case with another of his summary cases. At the bottom of his [Rule] 1925(b) [ Concise S]tatement, [] Pickin describes his efforts to rectify the problems/nuisance at the property that is the subject of this case[,] but does not describe any legal error by the [trial court].

Trial Court Opinion, 9/30/20, at 1 (unnumbered).

Initially, we recognize that

a ppellate briefs

... must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania R ules 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 b y 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 hi s undoing.

Commonwea lth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 497

- 98 (Pa. Super. 2005)

( citations omitted) ; accord Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)

( setting forth the required content s of appellate briefs).

Here, Pickin has submitted as his Appellate Brief the same single

- page,

handwritten document that he filed with the trial court as his Rule 1925(b)

Concise Statement. Pickin’s B rief fails to include the necessary statement ofJ

- S04045

- 21

- 3

-

jurisdiction, relevant scope and st andard of review, statement of the case,

summary of the argument, and argument. Most notably, Pickin identifies no

issue for review . Instead, as noted by the trial court, Pickin explains why

the property is in its current condition, and states that he is in the process of

repairing the property

. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/30/20, at 1

(unnumbered). Because t hese substantial def ects preclude meaningful

review , we dismiss Pickin’s appeal. See Adams

, supra ; Pa.R.A.P. 2101,

211 1.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 02/19/2021