J. A06011/16

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, : 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 t o 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. A dams , 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. Ly ons , 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.”

Adam s, 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

ina dequate.
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 theJ.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 OFFIC E DUM ONTS ACTIONS TO STAL L THE SERVICE OF SAID CITA TIONS A VIOLATION OF THE RULE. WHERE IN FACT HE WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE AB OUT THE SUSPENSION OF DRIVIN G PRIVILAGES, AND TH AT THE DEFENDANT LIVE IN FL ORIDA NOW, LADY LACK . ALSO THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE PICTURES OF SAID MET ALS AT QUESTION

.
THE INTENTION OF THI S OFFICER’S CONDUCT AND BIASNESS MONTS TO A JUSTIFICA TION OF ILL WILL AND PREDJUDICE TOWARDS THIS WHOLE C ASE. HE SHIFTED THI NGS AROUND AS HE TESTIFIED, AND JUDGE GELD USHURED H IM RIGHT ON. THE BALANCING BEAN W AS IN THE OFFICER’S FAVOR RIGHT FROM THE START. NO TIER OF FACT COULD P REVAIL ON THESE TERMS BY THE COURT. THE ONLY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY WAS OFFICER DUMONT’S . THIS COURT MUST F IND A VIOLATION OF PROCEDU RES 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 nume rous 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. AppellantJ.A06011/16

- 4

-

provides general citations to case law and one statute but fails to “direct the
court’s attention to the specific pa rt 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 a nalysis 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.