J

- S02037

- 22

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR.

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 498 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP

- 48

- CR

- 0000169

- 2017,

CP

- 48

- CR

- 0004301

- 2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR.

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 499 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP

- 48

- CR

- 0000169

- 2017,

CP

- 48

- CR

- 0004301

- 2016

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

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED JANUARY 6, 2023J

- S02037

- 22

- 2

-

Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr. (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order s 1

entered in the North ampton County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his

first, timely Post Conviction Relief Act 2 (PCRA) petition. A jury convicted

Appellant of eight counts each of possession of a controlled substance and

possession with intent to deliver (PWID), three counts of criminal use of a

communication facility, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia

. 3

The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 to 22 years’ incarceration

.

Appellant now raises a myriad of ineffective assistance of counsel claims

. After

careful review , w e affirm

.

As the parties are well acquainted with the facts of this case, which are

fully set forth in the PCRA court’s February 17, 2021, order , we need not recite

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Appellant filed two separate notices of appeal for both criminal dockets. Therefore, he has complied with Commonwealth v. Walker

, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 2018) (separate notices of appeal must be filed when a single order

resolves is sues arising on more than one trial court docket), overruled in part

, Commonwealth v. Young , 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021) (reaffirming that Pa.R.A.P. 341 requires separate notices of appeal when single order resolves issues under more than one docket, but holding Pa.R.A.P. 902 permits appellate court to consider appellant’s request to remediate error when notice of appeal is timely filed). On June 14, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se application

for consolidation. This Court grant ed the order on July 12 , 2021. See Order Granting Application for Consolidation

, 7/12 /21

.

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546.

3 35 P.S. §§ 780

- 113(a)(16), (30); 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a); 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(32)

, respectively.J

- S02037

- 22

- 3

-

them herein. See Order , 2/17/21, at 2

- 3. 4 The pertinent procedural history

is as follows. Appellant was charged at Criminal Docket No. CP

- 48

- CR

- 4301

-

2016 (Docket No. 4301

- 2016) with three counts of PWID, three counts of

possession of a controlled substance

, and three counts of criminal use of a

communication facility. Additionally, h e was charged at Criminal Docket No.

CP

- 48

- CR

- 0169

- 2017 (Docket No. 169

- 2017) with five counts of PWID , five

counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of drug

paraphernalia , and one count of possession of a firearm prohibited

. 5 Id. at 1

-

2.

Appellant was represented by several attorneys throughout various

stages of the criminal proceeding. Assistant Public Defend er Rory B. Driscole

,

Esquire, rep resented him at both of his preliminary hearings. See Order

,

2/17/21, at 3. Appellant requested that Attorney Driscole be removed from

the matter, and the court eventually granted his request via a motion to

withdraw by counsel

. See i d. at 3

- 4. Then, Alexander J. Karam, Jr.

, Esquire,

was appointed to represent Appellant. See i d. at 4. Attorney Karam filed two

pre

- trial motions, including a motion to suppress, but Appellant expressed

dissatisfaction with his representation as well. See i d. Attorney Karam also

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

4 The PCRA court’s February 17, 2021, Order is , in actuality, a 60

- page opinion which addresses Appellant’s PCRA claims.

5 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1)

. The firearms possession offense was subsequently nolle prossed

.J

- S02037

- 22

- 4

-

filed a motion to wit hdraw , which was granted. See i d. Consequently, Brian

M. Monahan, Esquire, was assigned as legal counsel. See i d. Attorney

Monahan represented Appellant at the suppression hearing. See i d.

However, shortly before his trial, Appellant “expressed his reluctance to move

forward with Attorney Monahan and requested another attorney.” Id. at 5

.

The trial court held a hearing regarding the matter, and denied Appellant’s

request to appoint new cou nsel. See i d.

Appellant’s jury trial began on September 6, 201 7. Two days later, the

jury convicted him of all charges. On September 22, 2017, the court imposed

the following sentence: (1) at Docket No. 4301

- 2016, Appellant received a

six

- to

- 12

- month sentence on each count of possession of a controlled

substance; 12 to 24 months on each count of PWID, and 12 to 24 months on

each count of c riminal u se of a c ommunication f acility ; and (2) at Docket No.

169

- 2017, Appellant received 5 to 10 years on the count of PWID (cocaine)

,

27 to 33 months on the count of PWID ( methylenedioxy

- methamphetamine

or MDMA )

, six to 12 years on the count of PWID ( Oxycodone )

, 12 to 18 months

on the count of PWID (Xanax), six to 16 months on the count of PWID

( marijuana ) , and six to 12 months on each of the five counts of p ossession of

a c ontrolled s ubstance . Appellant also received a sentence of probation on

the charge of p ossession of d rug p araphernalia. All of the sentences were to

run concurrent to each other, with the exception of two PWID counts (cocaine

and Oxycodone), which were to run consecutive to each other and to all otherJ

- S02037

- 22

- 5

-

counts. Appellant subsequently “ filed post

- sentence m o tions and requested

that he represent himself moving forward.” See Order , 2/17/21, at 5. On

October 11, 2017, Attorney Monahan filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.

The court held a Grazier 6 hearing and permitted counse l to withdraw and

Appellant to proceed pro se

. See id.

Appellant filed a direct appeal with this Court, 7 which affirmed his

judgment of sentence on January 23, 2019

. See Commonwealth v.

Sinanan

, 578 EDA 201 8 (unpub. memo.) ( Pa. Super. Jan

. 23 , 201 9 ). The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s subsequent petition for

allowance of appeal on January 7, 2020, and the United States Supreme Court

denied his petition for writ of cert iorari on March 9, 2020

. See

Commonwealth v. Sinanan

, 305 EAL 201 9 ( Pa. Jan. 7 , 20 20 )

, cert. denied

,

140 S.Ct. 1546 (U.S. 2020)

.

On February 5, 2020, Appellant filed a “Motion to Address Illegal

Sentence,” which the court treated as a first PCRA petition and appointed

counsel

. See Order , 2/17/21, at 5

- 6. Thereafter, Appellant filed numerous

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

6 See Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (requiring on the record inquiry to determine whether waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).

7 Appellant raised four claims concerning the trial court’s purported failure to suppress certain evidence and the search w arrant.J

- S02037

- 22

- 6

-

pro se supplemental motions 8 relating to request s for “ PCRA relief and relief

from a collateral forfeiture action by the Commonwealth.” Id. at 6 (footnote

omitted). “As a general[ ] summary, in his various fi li ngs [Appellant] raised

ineffective assistan[ce] of counsel claims against each of his appointed

attorneys, in add ition[ ] he raised claims of various constitutional violations

committed by the Commonwealth including attacking his warrantless arrest,

the issuan ce of the search warrant, and the quality of the evidence introduced

against him at trial.” Id. The PCRA court held another Grazier hearing on

June 22, 2020, and granted Appellant “relief by allowing him to proceed by

self

- representation.” Id. at 6

- 7.

The PCRA court held a n evidentiary hearing on October 9, 2020. At the

proceeding, Appellant and all three of his past attorney s appeared and

testified. See Order , 2/17/21, at 7. Thereafter, Appellant continued to

inundate the court with numerous pro se filings. 9 On February 17, 2021, the

PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition

. Appellant timely appealed and

complied with the court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors

complained of on appeal. On March 22, 2021 , the court filed a Pa.R.A.P.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

8 A review of the docket reveals that from the date Appellant filed his PCRA petition to the day of the evidentiary hearing, Appellant submitted approximately 3 0 motions and petitions with the PCRA court.

9 Appellant filed approximately ten add it ional motions with the court.J

- S02037

- 22

- 7

-

1925(a) opinion, which relied , in part, on its February 17, 2021, order

. See

PCRA Ct. Op., 3/22/21, at 1

- 2.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1) Whether the findings of the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” are supported by the record and free of legal error, where all three trial counselors were ineffective, for failure to present argument and defense to [Appellant]’ s warrantless arrest and the lack of probable cause, because under the United States and Pennsylv ania Constitutions: (1) [Appellant] was improperly stopped and searched, requiring suppression of any evidence seized as a result of the search and (2) the police action was not based on an exception to the requirement that an ARREST be based on a WARRANT issued by a neutral magistrate, after a determination that probable cause

has been demonstrated?

2) Whether the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and

that such error requires relief, where all three trial counselors were ineffective in neglecting to assert under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions: (1) that the prosecution and the magistrate circumvented policy and procedure, where procedural due process p rotections preclude prosecutors and magistrates from establishing a prima facie case at a Preliminary Hearin g utilizing only hearsay testimony evidence that would not be admissible at trial, and (2) is therefore categorically incapable of demonstrating tha t the prosecution later will be able to prove [Appellant]’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the findings of the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” are supported by the record; free of legal error; and adequately addressed when it dismissed the petition, where all three trial counselors were ineffective, for failing to move to suppress all evidence obtained from the Warrantless Arrest Affidavit (11/04/2016); Search Warrant Affidavit (11/04/2016); and the Warrantless Arrest Affidavit (12/27/2016), arguing that Of ficers established the

Affidavits in violation of “ Franks V. Delaware ” because: (1) the

Affiant omitted material information about the reliability of the unregistered confidential source, who was the primary source of the information, used to establish pro bable cause; (2) the Affiant omitted material facts to surveillance, video, and cell phone evidence, with the intent to make the affidavit misleading; and (3)J

- S02037

- 22

- 8

-

the Affiant included material information knowingly and intentionally, to a bag/jacket with drugs , being thrown on

November 4th

, the day of arrest?

4) Whether the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, by neglecting [Appellant]’s claim,

of whether [Appellant] received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, where “ Brian M. Monahan, ” failed to impeach DEA Agent Joseph Labenberg, by introducing his testimony at trial from an earlier hearing (Suppression/Habeas Corpus), in which DEA Agent Joseph Labenberg gave two different testimonies to material

evidence?

5) Whether the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the peti tion, and that such error requires relief, by neglecting [Appellant]’s claim,

of whether “ Brian M. Monahan ” , was ineffective for failing, to object to the admission of Detective Michael Mish ’ s expert testimony, regarding the fact to whether drugs were actu ally distributed and whether it was witnessed by the detectives on

three

. . . occasions; and was “ Brian M. Monahan ” , ineffective for intentionally eliciting Detective Michael Mish ’s otherwise inadmissible expert testimony at trial, that the jacket and

eve rything in it was [Appellant ’s ] , because that expert testimony was unduly prejudicial?

6) Whether the findings of the P.C.R.A. Court are supported by the record and free of legal error, where defense counsel “ Brian

M. Monaha n” was ineffective, for failing to object to the admission of police testimony at trial, regarding allegedly being familiarized

with [Appellant] in prior investigations going back to 2007, was prejudicial as it raised an adverse inference of guilt?

7) Whet her the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, where trial counselors “ Alexander J. Karam Jr. and Brian M. Monahan, ” were ineffective for failing to make a suppression motion with an argument that would have been meritorious, that since the police knew of the presence of

the four

. . . automobiles in question and planned all along to seize

all four

. . . , there were no exigent circumstances or automobi le exception justifying their failure to obtain a valid warrant, and the

fruit of t he unconstitutional seizure of the four

. . . automobilesJ

- S02037

- 22

- 9

-

were inadmissible, and that the doctrine of plain view could not j ustify the police seizure of [Appellant]’s four

. . . automobiles under the circumstances of the present case?

8) Whether the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” erred, by failing to adequately address a P.C.R.A. petition when it dismissed the petition, and that such error requires relief, where [Appellant] should be awarded a New Trial, because the recantation of silence by Detective Brent Lear at the Forfeiture Hearing, fits squarely within

the test for non

- Brady [ 10 ] after

- discovered evidence claim, and it

is clear that Detective Brent Lear ’ s silence about these facts throughout Pre

- Trial testimony was due solely to ineffective

assistance of trial counsel?

9) Whether the findings of the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” are supported by the record and free of legal error, where trial counselor “ Brian M.

Monahan ” was ineffective, for failing to object to an illegal sentence, because the P.W.I.D. drug convictions under [Docket

No. 169

- 2017] , had to merge for sentencing purposes to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9765?

10) Whether the findings of the “ P.C.R.A. Court ” are supported by the record and free of legal error, where trial counselor “ Brian M.

Monahan ” was ineffective, for failing to do basic legal research and to object to erroneously calculated prior record scor e, as. it pertains to prior New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Federal offenses?

Appellant’s Brief at viii

– xii (some bracketing omitted)

.

We begin with our well

- settled standard of review:

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited

t o examining whether the court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Further, the PCRA cou rt’s credibility determinations are binding on this Court, where there is record support for those determinations.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

10 Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).J

- S02037

- 22

- 10

-

Commonwealth v. Timchak , 69 A.3d 765, 769 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation

omitted). Moreover, because Appellant’s claims concern ineffective assistance

of counsel, we consider the following:

C ounsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the

PCRA petitioner must demo nstrate that counsel’s performance

was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him. In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland [ v. Washington

, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] performance and prejudice test into a three

part inquiry. See [ Commonwealth v. ] Pierce [

, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987)]. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner

must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2)

counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3)

the petitioner su ffered actual prejudice as a result. If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails. Generally, counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course of conduct that had some reasonable basis desig ned to effectuate his client ’ s interests. Where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, a finding that a chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not warranted unless it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for

su ccess substantially greater than the course actually pursued. To

demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional

errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. A

reasonable probability is a probability that is sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.

Commonwealth v. Charleston

, 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super. 201 4 )

(citation omitted)

. Moreover, “[a] court is not required to analyze the

elements of an ineffectiveness claim in any particular order of priority; instead,

if a claim fails under any necessary element of the ineffectiveness test, the

court may proceed to that element first.” Commonwealth v. Tharp

, 101

A.3d 736, 747 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).J

- S02037

- 22

- 11

-

At the outset, we emphasize that “[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. Tchi r kow , 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa

.

S uper. 2017). As such, “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. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted). Here,

we point out that Appellant’s lengthy brief consists of long

- winded and, at

times, disjointed, accusations of PCRA court error, which focus more on the

underlying argument than developing any ineffective assistance of counsel

analysis.

Additionally, b efore we may d ispose of Appellant’s substantive claims,

we must address several appellate procedural concerns. First, Appellant’s

brief , excluding exhibits, is 90 pages long and does not contain a word count

.

This is an obvious and blatant violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellat e

Procedure 2135, which states, in relevant part:

(a) Unless otherwise ordered by an appellate court:

(1) A principal brief shall not exceed 14,000 words

. . . . A party

shall file a certificate of compliance with the word count limit if the principal brief is longer than 30 pages

. . . when prepared on a word processor or typewriter.

* * *

(d) Certification 

### of compliance. Any brief in excess of the stated

page limits shall include a certification that the brief complies withJ

- S02037

- 22

- 12

-



### the word count limits. The certificate may be based on the word

count of the word processing system used to prepare the brief.

Pa.R.A.P. 2135(a)(1)

, ( d)

. 11

Notably, Appellant’s brief does not contain "a certificate of compliance

with the word count l imit," as required by Rule 2135 (a)(1) and (d)

. 12 “ The

certification requirement is not limited to counsel: Pro se litigants, too, are

obliged to provide a certification for a primary brief that exceeds thirty pages. ”

Commonwealth v. Spuck

, 86 A.3d 870, 873 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).

Moreover, Pennsylvania Rule of A ppellate Procedure 2101 “ underscores

the seriousness with which we take deviations from our rules o f procedure. ”

Vurimindi

, 200 A.3d at 10 41 n.19

. Rule 2101 state s : “ Briefs

. . . shall

conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly

as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be

suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief

. . . of the appellant and are

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

11 As this Court has previously noted:

Former Rule 2135 limited an appellate brief to 50 pages. It was changed in 2013 to limit the number of words in the principal brief

to 14,000 and in the reply brief to 7,000. If a principal brief exceeds 30 pages, or a reply brief exceeds 15 pages, the brief must contain a certificate of compliance with this Rule.

Commonwealth v. V urimindi

, 200 A.3d 1031, 1041 n.19 (Pa. Super. 2018)

.

12 Additionally, it is worth mentioning App ellant failed to attach his court

ordered concise statement to his brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11).J

- S02037

- 22

- 13

-

substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed. ”

Pa.R.A.P. 2101

. 13 Indeed , we could dismiss Appellant’s appeal for his lengt hy

brief alone.

Nevertheless, we continue to our second observation

— the question of

whether Appellant has complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appella te Procedure

1925(b). Appellant’s concise statement consists of ten issues and is 37 pages

in length. 14 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, Errors Complained of on

Appeal, 3/15/21.

This Court has previously recognized that “ Rule 1925 is a crucial

component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify

and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal. ” Kanter v.

Epstein

, 866 A.2d 394, 400 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted)

. “ The

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

13 As emphasized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

The briefing requirements scrupulously delineated in our appellate rules are not mere trifling matters of stylistic preference; rather, they represent a studied determination by our Court and its rules committee of the most efficacious manner by which appellate

review may be conducted so that a litigant ’ s right to judicial review as guaranteed by Article V, Section 9 of our Commonwealth ’ s Constitution may be properly exercised. Thus, we reiterate that compliance with these rules by appellate advocates who have any

busi ness before our Court is mandatory.

Commonwealth v. Briggs

, 12 A.3d 291, 343 (Pa. 2011)

.

14 It merits mention that the concise statement reads like an appellate brief with analysis following every issue.J

- S02037

- 22

- 14

-

[concise s] tatement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the

appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent

issues for the judge. ” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Nevertheless

, the filing of a

timely concise statement alone “ does not automatically equate with issue

preservation. ” Tucker v. R.M. Tours

, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2007)

.

Moreover, “[e]ven if the trial court correctly guesses the issues [a]ppellant

raise s on appeal and writes an opinion pursuant to that supposition

, the

issue [ s are] still waived.” Commonwealth v. Heggins , 809 A.2d 908, 911

(Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted)

.

As the Tucker Court opined :

[T] his Court has held that when appellants raise an outrageous

number of issues in their [Rule] 1925(b) statement, the appellants have deliberately circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and ha [ve] thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they [now] seek to raise. We have further noted that

such voluminous statements do not identify the issues appellants actually intend to raise on appeal because the briefing limitations

con tained in Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) make[ ] the raising of so many
issues impossible. Further, this type of extravagant [Rule] 1925(b) statement makes it all but impossible for the trial court

to provide a comprehensive analysis of the issues.

Id. at 346 (citations & internal quotation marks omitted; some brackets in

original). As such

, “ the [Rule] 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently concise

and coherent such that the trial court judge may be able to identify the issues

to be raised on appeal, and the circumstances must not suggest the existence

of bad faith. ” Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co.

, 947 A.2d 206, 210 (Pa. Super.

2008)

. See also Vurimindi

, 200 A.3d at 1038

- 43 (applying Kanter, Tucker

,J

- S02037

- 22

- 15

-

and Jiricko to a criminal matter ) ; Commonwealth v. Juray

, 275 A.3d 1037,

1041 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2022) (same).

Here, t he PCRA court found that Appellant’s concise statement was

“overly prolix [,] ”, and it was “unable to easily decipher the complaints and/or

respond with any reasonable detail.” See PCRA Ct. Op., 3/22/21, at 1. The

court further stated:

However, upon cursory review of . . . Appellant’s [concise statement], we note that the [s]tatement contains ten sections, some of which apparently blend multiple complaints. Much of Appellant’s complain t s were carefully analyzed in our 60 page Order denying PCRA relief and require no further support. Other sections of Appellant’s [s]tatement appear to contain exte nsive legal argument, address the weight of trial evidence and testimony, or address the District Attorney ’ s forfeiture petition

which was resolved under a different docket number in a civil

action. We submit that those complaints are not appropriate for including in Appellant’s [Rule] 1925(b) [s]tatement. We submit that any claim [s] not raised at the PCRA hearing or addressed in Appellant’s PCRA brief are waived on [a]ppeal

.

Finally, we feel comfortable that our 60 page Order of February 17, 2021 carefully analyzed and addressed all cognizable constitutional issues properly raised at the PCRA hearing and/or argued in Appellant’s PCRA brief. No further support is necessary.

Id. at 1

- 2.

We agree with the PCRA cou rt’s findings . Nevertheless, we will not

dismiss Appellant ’s brief at this time , as the violations do not substantially

impede our ability to conduct meaningful and effective appellate review. See

Commonwealth v. Hardy

, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) ( “ when

defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review,

we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived ” ).J

- S02037

- 22

- 16

-

Nevertheless, we warn Appellant against violating our appellate rules in the

future

.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the PCRA court’s February 17, 2021, order

. We conclude that

Appellant is entitled to no relief, and the PCRA court ’s order correctly dispose s

of Appellant ’s properly preserved issues 15 on appeal , especially considering

his sparse ineffective assistance of counsel analysis

. Therefore, we affirm on

the basis of the court’s order and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with

this or any other court addressing this decision , the filing party shall attach a

copy of the PCRA court’s February 17, 2021, order.



### Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order s dismissing Appellant’s

petition and denying him any relief

.

Lastly, Appellant filed two applications for relief with this Court on

August 2 2 , 2022, and December 1 2 , 2022

— both generally requesting that a

ruling be m ade in this appeal . Based on our decision, we deny those

applications as moot

.

Order s affirmed. Applications for Relief (8/23/22 & 12/13/22) denied

as moot.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

15 We note that issues two, four , five , and seven are either not cognizable under the PCRA or waived for failure to properly preserve them with the PCRA

court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9 5 4 3 (a)(2) ( setting forth types of cognizable errors for which PCRA provides r elief) ; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9 544 (b) (waiver); Pa.R.A.P. 302 (waiver).J

- S02037

- 22

- 17

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/6/2023Circulated 12/29/2022 11:33 AM