J-A08041-18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

MUZAFFAR AHMED,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2984 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 15, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-SA-0000310-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2018

Muzaffar Ahmed (Appellant) appeals pro se from the August 15, 2017

judgment of sentence imposing a $25 fine and costs after he was found guilty 

of a summary traffic offense. The Commonwealth has filed a motion to dismiss 

this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.

On April 29, 2017, Officer Jeffrey P. Gallo was on routine patrol in 

Chester County when he saw Appellant make a left-hand turn from the right 

lane in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3322. Appellant was issued a traffic citation

for this offense. He pled not guilty, and a magisterial district court hearing 

was scheduled. Appellant did not appear at the hearing and was found guilty 

of this offense in absentia. Appellant timely appealed for a trial de novo in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. On August 15, 2017, the 

parties appeared for the hearing. The trial court concluded that Appellant’s 
J-A08041-18

- 2 -

failure to appear at the district court was excused because the notice was sent 

to an incorrect address. However, crediting the testimony of Officer Gallo, the 

trial court found Appellant guilty of the summary offense. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 11/8/2017, at 3. This timely-filed appeal followed.1

On appeal, Appellant inartfully challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

to sustain his conviction, in addition to asserting several other purported 

errors. The Commonwealth argues that this appeal should be dismissed due 

to Appellant’s failure to follow numerous Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Motion to Quash Appeal and Deny Oral Argument, 1/11/2018, at 

¶¶ 6-12; Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-16 (explaining the deficiencies in 

Appellant’s brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2118, and 

2119 should result in waiver of all of Appellant’s claims). 

“As a prefatory matter, although 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. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” 

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal 

citations omitted). Our rules provide that “[b]riefs and reproduced records 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court issued notice pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) for Appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Instead of filing 

the statement in the trial court and sending a copy to the trial judge as 

directed, Appellant timely filed his statement with this Court. This Court 

forwarded the statement to the trial court, and the trial court prepared an 

opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 
J-A08041-18

- 3 -

shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as 

nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they 

may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record 

of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be ...

dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Here, we agree with the Commonwealth that the 

defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial and in violation of the rules 

referenced by the Commonwealth. Significantly, Appellant’s brief does not 

contain either a statement of questions involved which states “concisely the 

issues to be resolved” or an argument section “divided into as many parts as 

there are questions to be argued.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116, 2119. Thus, we conclude 

that this deficiency requires the dismissal of this appeal. 

Moreover, even if Appellant’s brief were compliant with the rules, this 

Court’s review has been substantially impeded by the failure of Appellant to 

request and file a transcript of the de novo hearing in compliance with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a) (“The appellant shall request any transcript required under 

this chapter in the manner and make any necessary payment or deposit 

therefor[.]”). 

[W]ell-settled Pennsylvania law makes clear an appellate court is 

limited to considering only the materials in the certified record 

when resolving an issue. Where the appellant has not made the 

transcript of the proceedings at issue a part of the certified record, 

we have said:

With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure require an appellant to order and pay for any 

transcript necessary to permit resolution of the issues raised 

on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a).... When the appellant ... fails 
J-A08041-18

- 4 -

to conform to the requirements of Rule 1911, any claims 

that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary 

transcript or transcripts must be deemed waived for the 

purpose of appellate review.

Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443, 456 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal 

citations omitted).

Here, there is no indication that Appellant requested the transcript or 

that one is available. Yet, on appeal, Appellant contends primarily that the 

trial court did not have sufficient evidence to convict him. Such a claim cannot 

be reviewed by this Court without a transcript. Accordingly, even if Appellant’s 

brief conformed with the rules, we would conclude that he has waived his 

issues on appeal for failure to ensure the inclusion of the transcript of the 

hearing in the certified record.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/30/18
J-A08041-18

- 5 -