J

- S26014

- 24

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 109 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001961

- 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 497 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001962

- 2010J

- S26014

- 24

- 2

-

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 498 MDA 2024

A ppeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001965

- 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 499 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001967

- 2010J

- S26014

- 24

- 3

-

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 500 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001973

- 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 501 MDA 2024

A ppeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001975

- 2010J

- S26014

- 24

- 4

-

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JESUS MANUEL TORRES

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 502 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR

- 0001983

- 2010

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 8, 2024

Jesus Manuel Torres appeals from the order entered in the Lebanon

County Court of Common Pleas d ismissing his petition filed pursuant to the

Post

- Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546

. 1 We are without

jurisdiction to hear Torres’ claims as the PCRA petition, his second, was

untimely filed and Torres has not asserted a timeliness exception. Additionally,

Torres has substantially failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure

.

Therefore, as we explain below, we quash this appeal.

Given our disposition, a detailed factual and procedural history is

unnecessary. Briefly, Torres pled guilty to multiple c harges related to drug

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 We consolidated these appeals sua sponte on April 16, 2024, as the appeals

all stem from the same order. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.J

- S26014

- 24

- 5

-

trafficking on March 30, 2011. 2 His plea was entered pursuant to a negotiated

plea deal where the Commonwealth agreed to an aggregate sentence of six

to fifteen years’ incarceration. The trial court sentenced Torres in accordance

with the agreement on April 27, 2011. Torres did not file a direct appeal.

The instant PCRA petition is Torres’ second and was filed on November

9, 2023. On November 30, 2023, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of

intent to dismiss as Torres’ PCRA petition was untimely filed and did not raise

any timeliness exception. On December 13, 2023, Torres filed a response to

the notice, but did not assert a timeliness exception. On January 9, 2024, the

PCRA court dismissed Torres’ PCRA petition. Torres filed a timely notice of

appeal and complied with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

As stated above, we are without jurisdiction to hear Torres’ claims as

the PCRA petition was untimely filed and Torres has not asserted a timeliness

exception, either before the PCRA Court or in this appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Jones , 54 A.3d 14, 17 (Pa. 2012) (noting that the PCRA

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 Specifically, seven counts of possession with intent to deliver

, 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(30) ; one count of possession of a controlled substance

, 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(16); one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(32); two counts of conspiracy to commit possession with intent to deliver, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1); six counts of criminal use of communication facility, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a); and two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal use of communication facility, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 903(a)(1).J

- S26014

- 24

- 6

-

timeliness requirements are jurisdictional, and a court may not address the

merits of a PCRA petition unless the petition is timely filed).

The PCRA provides that “[a]ny petition under this subchapter, including

a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the

judgment becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S. A. § 9545(b)(1). A PCRA petition may be

filed beyond that one

- year time period only if the defendant pleads and proves

one of t hree exceptions :

(i ) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the

claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

Id

.

Additionally, w e cannot reach the merits of Torres’ appeal because

Torres’ brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in

Pa.R.A.P. 2111

- 2135 , substantially impeding our review. “[B]riefs must

conform materially 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. Tchirkow , 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.

Super. 2017) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (if the brief of theJ

- S26014

- 24

- 7

-

appellant fails to conform with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in all material

respects the appeal may be quashed). Although we are “ willing to construe

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special

benefit.” Tchirkow , 160 A.3d at 804. “ [W] hen defects in a brief impede our

ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal

entirely[.]” Commonwealth v. Johnson

, 236 A.3d 1141, 1151 (Pa. Super.

20 20 ) (citation omitted).

Rule 2111 requires that the brief of the appellant include 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.

(6) Summary of argument.

***

(8) Argument for appellant.

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

(10) The opinions [delivered by the lower court].

(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.J

- S26014

- 24

- 8

-

(12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 2135(d).

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

Torres’ entire brief is five pages long and does not include a statement

of jurisdiction, order or other determination in question, statement of the

scope and standard of review, statement of the questions involved, statement

of the case, summary of the argument, or argument. See Appellant’s Brief

(unpaginated). Torres’ presents his brief in numbered paragraphs wherein he

includes his argument

. See id. Torres, to his credit, does include a short

conclusion stating the precise relief he seeks and attached the PCRA court’s

order dismissing his PCRA pe tition. See id. However, Torres does not attach

the PCRA court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion nor his Rule 1925(b) statement.

Because Torres’ brief flagrantly ignores the Rules of Appellate Procedure and

substantially impedes our review, we quash his appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Judge Kunselman joins the memorandum.

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/08/2024