J-S28005-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN REGINOLD COBB 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 267 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 23, 2019

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

No(s): CP-41-CR-0001118-2018

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

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2020

John Reginold Cobb appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence of an 

aggregate term of two to six years of incarceration imposed following his 

convictions for various drug-related crimes. We dismiss the appeal.

Nothing about the facts or procedural posture of this case is apparent 

from Appellant’s brief. From the trial court’s opinion, we discern that this is a 

timely direct appeal from the above-referenced judgment of sentence imposed 

upon Appellant’s conviction of crimes related of his sales of cocaine to a 

confidential informant, after he elected to make a knowing, intelligent, and 

voluntary waiver of his rights to counsel and a jury trial. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 2/11/20/, at 1. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a statement 
J-S28005-20

- 2 -

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

did not comply.1 

Appellant’s brief in this Court consists of ramblings about “a secret state 

of war” between “the compact party de facto states” and the federal 

government, and the bankruptcy of all of them. See Appellant’s brief at 1. It 

does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(4), and also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a 

statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the 

scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of 

argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) (requiring an argument section). The 

brief further is devoid of citations to the record, a synopsis of the evidence, or 

a statement of place of preservation of issues as are required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(c), (d), and (e), respectively. Additionally, the trial court’s opinion is 

not attached to Appellant’s brief as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b). 

“[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. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super. 2017). “[A] pro se litigant must 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court opines that Appellant’s failure to respond warrants finding all 

issues waived pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). See Trial Court Opinion, 

2/11/20/, at 2. Given our disposition infra, we do not reach the issue of Rule 

1925(b) waiver. However, we note that this Court has declined to find waiver 

where, as here, the trial court docket does not reflect if or when the Rule 

1925(b) order was served upon the appellant. See, e.g., Commonwealth 

v. Chester, 163 A.3d 470, 472 (Pa.Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1256 (Pa.Super. 2008). 
J-S28005-20

- 3 -

comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the 

Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “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. Gray, 608 A.2d 534, 550 (Pa. Super. 1992) (cleaned up). 

Appellant’s disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure have left this 

Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. 

Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa.Super. 1982) (declining to address the 

substance of the appeal because the brief was “so defective as to preclude 

effective, appellate review”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without 

considering its merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief 

or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other 

matter may be . . . dismissed.”). 

Appeal dismissed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/13/2020