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.
Not hing about the facts or procedural posture of this case is apparent from Appellant’s brief

. From t he 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 o f crimes related of his sales of cocaine to a confidential informant, after he elected to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waive r of his rights to counsel and a jury trial. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/11/20/, at 1. The trial court ordered Appell ant to file a statementJ

- 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 benefi t.” 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 th e 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 quota tion 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. S uper. 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