J

- S28007

- 18

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NATHAN MANIGO

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1468 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order August 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 35

- CR

- 0000147

- 2016

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 09, 2018
Appellant, Nathan Manigo, appeals pro se from the August 31, 2017

order dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post

- Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § § 9541

- 9546. We dismiss the appeal

. As our dispo sition is based on the procedural posture of this case, we
decline to set forth the factual background. On December 14, 2016 , Appellant
pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. 1 On
March 2, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 21 to 42 months’
imprisonment. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
On April 27, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA
court appointed counsel; however, Appellant indicated that he wished to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(30).J

- S28007

- 18

- 2

-

proceed pro se . The PCRA cour t held a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth

v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998 ), concluded that Appellant knowingly and
intelligently wa ived his right to PCRA counsel , and permitted him to proceed

pro se

. O n August 31, 2017, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. This
timely appeal followed. 2
Appellant presents five issues for our review:

1. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion[ ] when it did nothing to protect the integrity of the [suppression hearing] . . . ?

2. Did counsel render ineffective as sistance . . . [by not pursuing the suppression issue]?

3. Was [A]ppellant[’]s plea unlawfully induced . . . ?

4. [Did the PCRA court err in finding that no compact disk existed?]

5. Did the [PCRA] court err[] in denying [A]ppellant a PCRA hearing . . . ?
Appellant’s Brief at 5. Prior to addressing the merits of these issues, we address a preliminary

matter. As noted above, Appellant was entitled to counsel for this, his first, PCRA petition. Appellant , chose, however, to prosecute his PCRA petition pro

s e

. Although he is pro se , Appellant must comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

. Commonwealth v. Ray , 134 A.3d 1109, 1115 (Pa.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of no appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Nonetheless, on January 10, 2019, it issued an opinion setting forth its rationale for denying the petition.J

- S28007

- 18

- 3

-

Super. 2016) (citation omitted)

. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) provides that, “ The argum ent [section of an appellant’s brief] shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued [.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). In this case, Appellant failed to divide the argument

section of his brief into five sections , i.e. , the number of questi ons to be argued . Instead, he made rambling arguments in one, large, incomprehensible section of his brief. As this substantial defect hinders our
review of t his appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 ( providing for dismissal of appeals where there are substantial defects in the appellant’s brief).
App e al dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 7/09/2018