J-S51022-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NOEL BROWN,

Appellant No. 649 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 3, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-64-CR-0000258-2016

BEFORE: BOWES and SHOGAN, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 23, 2017

Appellant, Noel Brown, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence 

entered on February 3, 2017, in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. 

We affirm.

The record reveals that on June 29, 2016, A.C., the fifteen-year-old 

victim in this case, was reported as a runaway. Affidavit of Probable Cause, 

7/7/16, at 1. A.C. had answered an online advertisement seeking escorts 

and strippers. Id. On that day, A.C. left her mother’s house with Appellant. 

Id. By tracking A.C.’s cellular telephone, Pennsylvania State Police were 

able to locate A.C. at a local motel. Id. When the police arrived, they 

noticed that A.C. appeared intoxicated; A.C. stated that Appellant had given 

____________________________________________

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S51022-17

- 2 -

her vodka. Id. The troopers transported A.C. to the State Police barracks 

and questioned her regarding the events of the prior evening. Id. A.C. told 

the troopers that she had answered an online advertisement for escorts, and 

Appellant picked her up and drove her to the motel. Id. At the motel, 

Appellant provided A.C. with liquor, and A.C. fell asleep. Id. Police 

discovered that after A.C. fell asleep, Appellant undressed A.C., exposed her 

breasts, took a photograph of the minor’s breasts, and placed the 

photograph online in an effort to utilize A.C. as a prostitute. Id. Police also 

recovered a document signed by A.C. wherein she agreed to work for 

Appellant, and Appellant would act as her pimp. Id. 

Police arrested Appellant and charged him with numerous crimes in 

connection with the aforementioned events. At the preliminary hearing 

before a magisterial district judge, there was a colloquy consistent with 

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998),1 and a thorough 

discussion of the factors outlined in Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2) concerning pro 

se representation. N.T., 7/18/16, at 8.2 At the subsequent hearing on 

____________________________________________

1

 In Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998), the Supreme 

Court of Pennsylvania held that when a defendant wishes to waive counsel, 

an on-the-record determination should be made that said waiver is knowing, 

intelligent, and voluntary.

2 Compare Commonwealth v. Payson, 723 A.2d 695, 704 (Pa. Super. 

1999) (where this Court concluded that a proper waiver of counsel did not 

occur when the defendant signed a waiver-of-counsel form specifically 

indicating that the waiver was effective only as to the proceeding before the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S51022-17

- 3 -

pretrial motions, Appellant informed the trial court that he remained 

steadfast in his desire to represent himself. N.T., 10/3/16, at 4. The trial 

court questioned Appellant, urged him to retain counsel, and informed 

Appellant that the court would appoint counsel. Id. Appellant reiterated 

that he would not accept counsel and would represent himself. Id. The trial 

court ultimately permitted Appellant to proceed pro se, but the trial court 

appointed standby counsel. Id. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found 

guilty of interference with custody of children,3 dissemination of photos of 

child sex acts, corruption of minors, furnishing liquor to minors, and 

trafficking in minors. 

On February 3, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate term of 180 to 384 months of incarceration. Appellant filed postsentence motions that were denied, and on February 9, 2017, Appellant filed 

a timely appeal. Throughout the proceedings Appellant remained pro se.

On February 14, 2017, the trial court directed Appellant to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). On March 10, 2017, Appellant filed what he labeled a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement. This statement is a hand-written, nearly illegible 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

district justice). Here, Appellant waived counsel before the magisterial 

district judge and before the trial court judge. 

3

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2904(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(c), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii), 

18 Pa.C.S. § 3011(b), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6310.1(a), respectively.
J-S51022-17

- 4 -

diatribe of more than thirty claims of error. On April 17, 2017, the trial 

court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

On appeal, Appellant purports to raise issues of ineffective assistance 

of counsel, improper venue, an unlawful search, the opinion of the Sexual 

Offenders Assessment Board, obstruction of justice, due process, discovery, 

pretrial motions, prior bad acts evidence, cruel and unusual punishment, 

sufficiency of the evidence, and a deprivation of his rights. Appellant’s Brief 

at unnumbered 3-18. After review, we are constrained to conclude that 

none of the issues is supported by cogent legal argument or citation to 

relevant authority; rather, Appellant’s argument is a nonsensical invective 

on the proceedings in the trial court. 

“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.” 

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005). “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.” Id. (citation omitted). Due to the 

overwhelming deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we conclude that Appellant 

has waived his issues on appeal.4 Pa.R.A.P. 2119; see also 

____________________________________________

4

 Assuming for the sake of argument that Appellant’s brief was capable of 

being distilled into lucid claims of error, we would affirm on the basis of the 

trial court’s opinion wherein the trial court dutifully pared down Appellant’s 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S51022-17

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 54 A.3d 908, 915 (Pa. Super. 2012) (an 

appellant’s failure to develop an argument or cite authority in support of his 

issue results in waiver of the claim). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s 

judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/23/2017

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

convoluted Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and argument into twelve issues. 

See Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/17.