J. A06011/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

MICHAEL J. ASCENZI, :

:

Appellant : No. 1461 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 22, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County 

Criminal Division No(s).: CP-40-SA-0000114-2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE ,J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2016

Appellant, Michael J. Ascenzi, appeals pro se from the Judgment of 

Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County following 

his convictions for Driving While Operating Privilege is Suspended or 

Revoked and Driving with an Unsecured Load.1 After careful review, we 

dismiss.

The facts are not relevant to our determination. Appellant’s brief is 

insufficient, hard to comprehend, unsupported, and at times illegible. 

Appellant failed to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in 

Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable to conduct meaningful 

appellate review.

 

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a); 75 Pa.C.S. § 4903, respectively.
J.A06011/16

- 2 -

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and this Court may quash or 

dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth 

v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. 

“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by 

a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an 

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (citation omitted). “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.” 

Adams, supra at 498 (citation omitted).

Our review of Appellant’s brief exposes substantial violations of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. While Appellant’s Brief does contain various 

sections as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), the sections are decidedly 

inadequate. 

Appellant’s standard and scope of review section pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(3) is entitled “Standard Scope of Review” and fails to state what the 

standard of review is, fails to state what the scope of review is, and fails to 

provide citations to any supporting authority. Appellant’s Brief at 6. Rather, 

Appellant makes sweeping assertions about this Court’s “duty” to “appy the 

proper resolution in solving ‘inte aila’ errors of law and securing the 
J.A06011/16

- 3 -

constitutional amendments, or state articees as the same.” Id.

(capitalization omitted; spelling and grammatical errors in original).

Appellant includes a “Statement of Questions Involved” pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 2116, which contains the following two paragraphs, verbatim: 

WAS THE NATURE OFFICE DUMONTS ACTIONS TO STALL THE 

SERVICE OF SAID CITATIONS A VIOLATION OF THE RULE. 

WHERE IN FACT HE WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE 

SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILAGES, AND THAT THE 

DEFENDANT LIVE IN FLORIDA NOW, LADY LACK. ALSO THE 

DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE 

PICTURES OF SAID METALS AT QUESTION.

THE INTENTION OF THIS OFFICER’S CONDUCT AND BIASNESS 

MONTS TO A JUSTIFICATION OF ILL WILL AND PREDJUDICE 

TOWARDS THIS WHOLE CASE. HE SHIFTED THINGS AROUND 

AS HE TESTIFIED, AND JUDGE GELD USHURED HIM RIGHT ON. 

THE BALANCING BEAN WAS IN THE OFFICER’S FAVOR RIGHT 

FROM THE START. NO TIER OF FACT COULD PREVAIL ON THESE 

TERMS BY THE COURT. THE ONLY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY 

WAS OFFICER DUMONT’S. THIS COURT MUST FIND A 

VIOLATION OF PROCEDURES AND REVERSE.

Appellant’s Brief at 7 (spelling and grammatical errors in original). 

Appellant fails to “state concisely the issues to be resolved” in 

compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Appellant avers “violation of the rule” 

and “violation of procedures” but fails to cite any rule, any procedures, or 

any legal authority to guide appellate review. Appellant’s Brief at 7.

Lastly, Appellant’s “Argument” section fails to comply with the 

requirements of Pa.R.A.P 2119. Appellant references evidence from the 

record numerous times, but only provides a specific cite to the record one 

time. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (d); Appellant’s Brief at 9-13. Appellant 
J.A06011/16

- 4 -

provides general citations to case law and one statute but fails to “direct the 

court’s attention to the specific part of the authority on which the party 

relies” and fails to engage in meaningful discussion or analysis of any 

authority that he cites. Pa.R.A.P. 126; 2119(a)-(d). The section consists of 

unorganized thoughts, incomplete citations to the record, and no analysis or 

discussion of how the cited case law is relevant to the issues Appellant is 

attempting to raise.

 These substantial omissions preclude meaningful review.2 

Accordingly, we suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss his appeal. See 

Adams, supra at 497-98; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/26/2016

 

2 The court notes that the Appellant failed to appear for oral argument, 

which also precluded this Court from reviewing the appeal in a meaningful 

way.