J-S10020-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HEATHER HOFFMAN, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3271 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 26, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-15-CR-0002914-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2018

Appellant, Heather Hoffman, appeals pro se from the order entered on 

September 26, 2017 denying her first petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546. We dismiss the appeal.

We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as 

follows. On May 14, 2014, police responded to a call from the emergency 

room at Brandywine Hospital reporting that Appellant was combative with 

the staff. More specifically, 

[Appellant] faked a seizure after medical personnel refused to 

provide her with Percocet[, an opioid painkiller]. During the 

incident, Appellant threw a clipboard at a nurse, causing the 

nurse to suffer a minor eye injury and creating a commotion that 

disrupted the operation of the emergency room.

See Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 2016 WL 7176962, at *1 (Pa. Super. 

2016) (unpublished memorandum). A jury convicted Appellant of simple 
J-S10020-18

- 2 -

assault on April 8, 2015. Thereafter, the trial court also found Appellant 

guilty of two summary offenses, disorderly conduct and harassment. On 

July 7, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 48 hours to 23 months of 

incarceration. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on July 7, 

2015. See id. Appellant did not appeal that determination.

On December 27, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The 

PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant. On August 8, 2017, 

PCRA counsel moved to withdraw as counsel under Commonwealth v. 

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 

213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On September 14, 2017, the PCRA court 

gave Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing 

pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant responded pro se on September 

22, 2017. On September 26, 2017, the PCRA court entered an order 

denying Appellant’s PCRA petition and granting appointed counsel’s request 

to withdraw. This timely appeal resulted.1 

Because of the substantial defects in Appellant’s pro se appellate brief, 

we dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s brief consists of a two-page 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 9, 2017. On October 

11, 2017, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant 

complied timely on October 16, 2017. On October 19, 2017, the PCRA court 

filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) that relied upon its 

September 14, 2017 Rule 907 notice and September 26, 2017 order as its 

rationale for denying PCRA relief.
J-S10020-18

- 3 -

stream-of-conscious recitation of her version of events in the underlying 

criminal prosecution. She did not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) regarding 

the contents of her brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (The brief of the appellant 

shall consist of 12 separately and distinctly entitled sections). Appellant also 

failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b) and (d) by failing to affix the PCRA 

court’s opinions and Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) concise statement to her 

appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b) and (d). Most importantly, Appellant 

does not provide citation to relevant authority and does not reference the 

record in advancing her appellate arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b) and 

(c). “This Court possesses discretionary authority to quash, dismiss or deny 

allowance of appeal based upon the substantial defects of [an] appellant's 

brief.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1993), 

citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs [] shall conform in all material respects with 

the requirements of [the appellate] 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 or reproduced record of the appellant and are 

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

Moreover, 

a pro se litigant[’s status] does not entitle [her] to any 

advantage due to [her] lack of legal training. Further, a 

layperson choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding to 

a reasonable extent assumes the risk that [her] lack of legal 

training will place [her] at a disadvantage. Accordingly, 

a pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure.
J-S10020-18

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114–1115 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

Here, Appellant’s pro se brief is so defective as to preclude meaningful 

appellate review. As such, we dismiss the appeal.

Finally, after filing her appeal, Appellant filed two pro se applications 

for relief with this Court. On February 16, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se

application for relief requesting we vacate her sentences and award her 

PCRA relief. On March 26, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se application for relief 

asking us to incorporate her half-brother’s court records into her current 

appeal. Because we have dismissed Appellant’s appeal, we deny her 

applications for relief. 

Appeal dismissed. Motion to Grant Appellant’s PCRA Appeal denied. 

Motion to Join Record of Appeal denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/30/18
J-S10020-18

- 5 -