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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

The 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 the condition of a 

property he owned at [] N. Shamokin Street in the City of 

Shamokin. 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 sentenced 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.

[] Pickin 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] document 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

appellate briefs ... 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) 

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

(setting forth the required contents 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 Brief fails to include the necessary statement of 
J-S04045-21

- 3 -

jurisdiction, relevant scope and standard 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 these substantial defects preclude meaningful 

review, we dismiss Pickin’s appeal. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101,

2111.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/19/2021