J. A15042/18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

RONALD LEE SHEETZ, : No. 1961 MDA 2017

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order, November 17, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No. CP-36-CR-0000946-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 04, 2018

Ronald Lee Sheetz appeals pro se from the November 17, 2017 order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County that dismissed his 

petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) and 

permitted PCRA counsel to withdraw. We dismiss this appeal.

In reviewing appellant’s brief, we are unable to discern the issue or 

issues that appellant wishes this court to review because appellant has failed 

to include a statement of questions involved. We have recognized that the 

omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly grievous since 

the statement . . . defines the specific issues this court is asked to review.” 

Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996), quoting 

 

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. A15042/18

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa.Super. 1993). “When 

the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is combined with the 

lack of any organized and developed arguments, it becomes clear that 

appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct meaningful judicial 

review.” Smathers, 670 A.2d at 1160.

Additionally, appellant’s brief entirely fails to comply with 

Pa.R.A.P. 2111, as it fails to include a statement of jurisdiction, the order in 

question, both the scope and the standard of review, a statement of the case, 

a summary of the argument, a short conclusion of the precise relief sought, 

and the PCRA court’s opinion. Appellant’s brief consists of three handwritten 

pages of complaints lodged against his plea counsel and the Lancaster County 

District Attorney’s Office. To the extent that appellant attempts to raise 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims against plea counsel, appellant entirely 

fails to plead and prove that: (1) the legal claim underlying the ineffectiveness 

claim has arguable merit; (2) plea counsel’s action or inaction lacked any 

reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interest; and (3) plea 

counsel’s action or inaction resulted in prejudice to petitioner. See

Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 618 (Pa. 2015) (citations omitted)

(reiterating a PCRA petitioner’s burden when raising an ineffectiveness of 

counsel claim). Appellant also fails to include citations to legal authority and 

record citations. As this court has stated, “[w]hen a court has to guess what 
J. A15042/18

- 3 -

issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.” 

Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 89 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

Although we are mindful that appellant is proceeding pro se, his choice 

to do so does not relieve him of his responsibility to properly raise and develop 

appealable claims. See Smathers, 670 A.2d at 1160. Moreover, this court 

will not act as appellant’s counsel. See id. Accordingly, because the 

substantial defects in appellant’s brief preclude us from conducting any 

meaningful judicial review, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2101; 

see also Smathers, 670 A.2d at 1160-1161.

Appeal dismissed.2

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 06/04/2018

 

2 The Commonwealth’s application to quash is denied as moot.