J-A04013-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RASHEEM DOWDY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2156 EDA 2020

Appeal from the PCRA Order dated October 15, 2020, 

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

No(s): CP-23-CR-0000160-2014

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 1, 2022

Rasheem Dowdy appeals from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 

the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon 

review, we quash. 

On May 12, 2015, Dowdy was sentenced to an aggregate term of 31 to 

62 years’ incarceration after a jury convicted him of attempted homicide and 

related charges. Dowdy filed a timely appeal of his judgment of sentence, 

which this Court affirmed on March 29, 2018. See Commonwealth v. 

Dowdy, 188 A.3d 586 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Table). Our Supreme Court denied 

allowance of appeal on September 25, 2018. See id., 194 A.3d 1035 (Pa. 

2018) (Table).

Dowdy filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 29, 2019. The PCRA 

court appointed counsel, who, after multiple extension requests, filed a “no-
J-A04013-22

- 2 -

merit” letter pursuant to Turner/Finley,

1 along with an application to 

withdraw. On September 10, 2020, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 

notice of its intention to dismiss Dowdy’s petition without a hearing. Dowdy 

filed a pro se response and, on October 15, 2020, the court formally dismissed 

his petition and granted counsel leave to withdraw. Dowdy filed a timely 

notice of appeal.2 The PCRA court did not order Dowdy to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On April 14, 

2021, this Court quashed Dowdy’s appeal for failure to file a brief; upon 

application by Dowdy, the appeal was reinstated on May 13, 2021. 

____________________________________________

1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. 

Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

2 Dowdy’s notice of appeal did not contain the date on which the order 

appealed from was entered on the docket. It did, however, contain the lower 

court docket number and state that it was a notice of appeal from the dismissal 

of his PCRA petition. On February 24, 2021, this Court issued a rule, directing 

Dowdy to show cause why his appeal should not be quashed as “having been 

taken from a purported order which is not entered upon the appropriate docket 

in the lower court.” Rule to Show Cause, 2/24/21. Dowdy filed a timely 

response, in which he stated that he had not been receiving mail consistently 

and had no access to a computer or the law library. See Response to Rule to 

Show Cause, 3/1/21. On March 12, 2021, the rule to show cause was 

discharged and the issue raised therein referred to the panel assigned to

decide the merits of Dowdy’s appeal. Because Dowdy’s appeal was timely 

filed, we decline to quash on this basis. See Commonwealth v. Willis, 29 

A.3d 393, 395–96 (Pa. Super. 2011) (technical errors do not affect validity of 

timely filed notice of appeal); Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583, 

587 (Pa. 2014) (“A timely notice of appeal triggers the jurisdiction of the 

appellate court, notwithstanding whether the notice of appeal is otherwise 

defective.”).

. 
J-A04013-22

- 3 -

Upon review of Dowdy’s brief, we are constrained to quash the appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In all respects, the brief fails to conform to the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the brief does not contain: (1) a 

statement of jurisdiction; (2) a statement of the order or other determination 

in question; (3) a statement of the scope and standard of review; (4) a 

statement of the questions involved; (5) a statement of the case; or (6) a 

summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111. In addition, the two-page 

“argument” section of Dowdy’s brief consists of a reproduction, with minor 

changes, of his response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice. The brief 

contains no citation to authority, and Dowdy fails to develop any legal 

argument whatsoever. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that 

Dowdy has waived all appellate issues. See Commonwealth v. Clayton, 

816 A.2d 217 (Pa. 2002) (“[I]t is a well[-]settled principle of appellate 

jurisprudence that undeveloped claims are waived and unreviewable on 

appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 

2014) (“Under Pennsylvania law, pro se [litigants] are subject to the same 

rules of procedure as are represented defendants.”).

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/1/2022