J-A21022-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HARUN WILSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1853 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 21, 2019

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

No(s): CP-51-SA-0001253-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 13, 2020

Appellant, Harun Wilson, appeals pro se from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered on June 21, 2019, after Appellant failed to appear for his summary 

trial. Because Appellant’s brief is patently defective, we dismiss his appeal and

affirm his Judgment of Sentence. 

On December 24, 2018, police cited Appellant for making an illegal turn, 

driving with a suspended license and without current emissions and 

inspections stickers, and for allowing his minor child to ride without a proper 

safety restraint.

1 Appellant failed to appear for his trial in the Traffic Division 

of the Philadelphia Municipal Court on February 25, 2018, and the court found 

Appellant guilty of the above charges. 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3331(c), 1543(a), 4706, 4763, and 4581(a)(1), respectively. 
J-A21022-20

- 2 -

On May 24, 2019, the municipal court reinstated Appellant’s appellate 

rights nunc pro tunc, and Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of 

Common Pleas on the same day. On June 21, 2019, Appellant failed to appear 

at his scheduled status conference and the trial court entered judgment 

against him pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 1037(D)(2). See Trial Ct. 

Or., 6/21/19. 

Appellant pro se filed a Notice of Appeal on July 9, 2019. Appellant 

timely filed a Rule 1925(b) Statement and the trial court filed a responsive 

Opinion. Unfortunately, Appellant’s brief fails to comport to our Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, thus foreclosing appellate review.

It is well settled that “a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural 

rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v. 

Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). “This Court 

will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an 

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citation omitted).

An appellant’s brief must comply with Rule 2111 and contain the 

following:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.

(2) Order or other determination in question.

(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of 

review.

(4) Statement of the questions involved.

(5) Statement of the case.
J-A21022-20

- 3 -

(6) Summary of argument.

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.

(8) Argument for appellant.

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this rule.

(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) was entered.

(12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 

2135(d).

Pa.R.A.P. 2111. We may dismiss an appeal where an appellant’s brief fails to 

substantially conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

In his eight-page, handwritten brief, Appellant discusses financial and 

mental health hardships that have affected him and contributed to his multiple 

license suspensions. Appellant fails to allege any trial court error, develop 

meaningful argument, and cite to the record and pertinent authority. In fact, 

Appellant’s brief does not contain any of the sections required by Rule 2111.

While this Court sympathizes with Appellant’s hardships, the defects in 

Appellant’s brief are substantial and prevent this Court from conducting 

meaningful appellate review. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this 

appeal. 

Appeal dismissed. Judgment of Sentence affirmed. 
J-A21022-20

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/13/2020