J-S60039-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSE L. CRUZ

Appellant No. 1976 MDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 24, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000329-2006

BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 30, 2014

Jose Cruz (“Appellant”) appeals from the order dismissing his petition 

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 

9541-9546. We dismiss the appeal for the following reasons.

Following trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree murder,1

robbery,2theft by unlawful taking or disposition,3and receiving stolen 

property.4 The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the 

felony murder conviction, and imposed a consecutive term of eight (8) to 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701.

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925.
J-S60039-14

- 2 -

twenty (20) years’ imprisonment for the robbery conviction.5 After 

Appellant’s post-sentence motions were denied by operation of law, 

Appellant timely appealed.

On April 22, 2010, this Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions, vacated 

his separate Robbery judgment of sentence, but affirmed Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence in all other respects. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 

2028 MDA 2008 (filed April 22, 2010) (unpublished memorandum). Our 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of 

appeal on October 6, 2010.

Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on September 28, 2011.6 

____________________________________________

5 The trial court did not impose further penalties for the theft by unlawful 

taking or receiving stolen property convictions.

6 Appellant’s pro se PCRA petition purported to raise the following issues:

1) Trial Counsel Mark Buffalino, was ineffective due to his failure 

to produce at trial, Forensic Findings of exculpatory evidence.

2) Appellate Counsel Brian Corcoran, was ineffective due to his 

failure to include in his Post Sentencing Motions, Exculpatory 

Evidence which could have exonerated this Petitioner from 

this matter.

3) Appellate Counsel Matthew Kelly, was ineffective due to his 

filing of a frivolous Concise Statement with the Trial Court.

4) Appellate Counsel Matthew Kelly was ineffective due to his 

failure to raise claims of arguable merit.

5) Attorney Robert M. Buttner, was ineffective due to his failure 

to raise issues of arguable merit in an appeal to the Superior 

Court.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S60039-14

- 3 -

Appointed counsel filed a Supplemental PCRA Petition on February 1, 2013.7 

The PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition on September 24, 2013, and 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

6) Attorney Robert M. Buttner was ineffective due to his failure 

to file an Amended Concise Statement, filed by Attorney 

Matthew Kelly.

7) Petitioner was deprived of reasonable doubts to which he was 

entitled under the Federal Constitution.

8) The District Attorney committed Prosecutorial Misconduct by 

his withholding of exculpatory evidence, which if introduced at 

trial could have exonerated this petitioner.

9) Petitioner was denied a fair trial through the illegal trial fixing.

Appellant’s “Memorandum of Law P.C.R.A.” appended to the pro se PCRA 

petition, pp. 2-3 (verbatim).

7 The Supplemental PCRA Petition supplemented the issues purportedly 

raised in Appellant’s pro se PCRA petition with the following four claims:

1. [Appellant] alleges that counsel failed to investigate and 

follow through with finding a match for the blood of the t-shirt in 

evidence. While the DNA report excluded [Appellant], no match 

was ever found.

2. [Appellant] alleges that the Commonwealth failed to turn 

over all documentation related to the DNA testing.

3. [Appellant] alleges that counsel failed to call witnesses 

including Tracy Smith and Mr. Flipens who would have indicated 

that these witnesses were with the victim after [Appellant] left 

the victim, and thus [Appellant] could not have committed the 

crime. 

4. [Appellant] alleges that counsel failed to obtain criminal 

records regarding witnesses called at trial which could have been 

used to challenge their credibility.

Supplemental PCRA Petition, p. 1.
J-S60039-14

- 4 -

Appellant timely appealed on October 23, 2013. Upon motion of Appellant, 

this Court remanded the matter for a Grazier8 hearing on February 24, 

2014. The PCRA court conducted a Grazier hearing on March 20, 2014 and 

granted Appellant’s request to proceed pro se.

9

 Ultimately, Appellant filed 

____________________________________________

8 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa.1988).

9 The transcript of the Grazier hearing illustrates without question that the 

PCRA court properly counselled Appellant that, if he chose to proceed pro se, 

he would be bound by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and 

would be held to the same standard of those with formal legal education:

[The PCRA court]: You understand that if you represent 

yourself, you’re going to be bound by all the normal rules and 

procedures with respect to your appeal?

[Appellant]: Yes.

[The PCRA court]: In other words, you’re going to be held to the 

same standard as if you had all the training and experience and 

education of a lawyer?

[Appellant]: Yes.

See N.T. 3/20/2014, p. 4. In fact, the PCRA court took particular care to 

explain to Appellant the potential pitfalls of representing himself:

[The PCRA court]: You understand if certain issues aren’t raised, 

or if they’re not raised in the appropriate fashion, they can be 

waived or lost?

[Appellant]: Yes.

[The PCRA court]: Do you understand that?

[Appellant]: Yes. If I may say --

[The PCRA court]: In other words, to put it quite frankly, if you 

screw up or make mistakes, you’re stuck with those mistakes. 

Do you understand that?

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S60039-14

- 5 -

his brief with this Court on July 10, 2014. The Commonwealth filed its brief 

on August 11, 2014.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: 

1.) When raising a claim of insufficiency of evidence does the 

appellate court have to review the record of the total 

circumstances combined[?]

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

[Appellant]: I understand that, sir; but, at least I’ll be doing it 

for me, and someone else will not be making mistakes for me.

[The PCRA court]: So, as I understand it, notwithstanding any 

of the advantages to having counsel represent you, you want to 

give up those advantages and represent yourself?

[Appellant]: Yes, sir.

[PCRA counsel]: Judge, if I might just make one comment 

regarding that he would be bound by all the rules and 

procedures of the Appellate Courts.

I’ve read a couple of cases recently by the Appellate 

Courts where it seems like they’re not being quite as 

liberal as they once were in allowing pro se litigants to not 

conform to all the appellate rules when it comes to filing a 

brief. So, it may not be as liberal as it once was, just so 

he’s aware of that.

[The PCRA court]: I’ve asked him that question.

- - - - -

EXAMINATION (cont’d.)

- - - - -

[The PCRA court]: And you indicated that you understood that?

[Appellant]: Yes, sir.

N.T. 3/20/2014, pp. 5-6. Ultimately, Appellant still elected to proceed pro 

se, and the PCRA court acceded to Appellant’s request to represent himself 

in the instant appeal. N.T. 3/20/2014, p. 7.
J-S60039-14

- 6 -

2.) Whether being represented by counsel or other . . . Is it not 

the appellant’s obligation to make sure the record be complete 

and fully correct in order to support the issues raised on appeal 

and does the exhibit support our layered claim of ineffective 

assistance, for failure to object, raise, and preserve the record[?]

3.) A conviction can be sustained on wholly circumstantial 

evidence, however, does these exhibits contain a scientific 

certainty (relevant rebuttal evidence) complete the record for 

adaquate and appropriate appellate review and pronounce a 

manifest miscarriage of justice[?]

Appellant’s Brief, Statement of Questions Involved, p. 4 (all capitals 

removed, all errors in original).

In reviewing an order denying PCRA relief, our well-settled standard of 

review is “to determine whether the determination of the PCRA court is 

supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA 

court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the 

findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 

191-192 (Pa.Super.2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

We note initially that the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 

set forth mandatory briefing requirements for litigants. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 

et seq. Rule 2119 requires:

(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many 

parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the 

head of each part–in distinctive type or in type distinctively 

displayed–the particular point treated therein, followed by such 

discussion and citation to authorities as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). We may quash or dismiss an appeal where an 

appellant’s brief fails to substantially conform to the briefing requirements. 
J-S60039-14

- 7 -

Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-

98 (Pa.Super.2005) (Superior Court may quash or dismiss appeals where 

parties filed non-conforming briefs).

Here, Appellant filed a brief that fails to comply with the requirements 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure governing the content of briefs and fails 

to develop meaningful arguments.10 Although this Court may construe pro 

se briefs liberally, pro se status confers no special benefit upon Appellant. 

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa.Super.2003). Where an 

appellant’s disregard of the Rules of Appellate Procedure precludes 

meaningful judicial review, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judge Ott joins the memorandum.

Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

10 In his brief, Appellant presents an eighteen-page Argument section that 

does not correspond to the three claims contained in the Statement of

Questions Involved. Instead, the Argument appears to state nine additional 

questions for our review, and appears to be little more than a second 

statement of questions presented. To the extent the Argument’s claims are 

comprehensible and correspond to previously properly raised PCRA claims, 

they are supported by decidedly sparse legal authority, and even less 

citation to the record. In short, the Argument fails to explain why this Court 

should agree with the various claims, even if they had been properly raised 

and argued.
J-S60039-14

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/30/2014