J-S04021-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ

Appellant No. 2282 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0004038-2015

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 23, 2017

Alexis Rodriguez appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on 

May 3, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. 

Rodriguez pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated assault, graded as a 

felony of the first degree,1and was sentenced to serve a term of three to 20 

years’ imprisonment. Based upon the following, we dismiss this appeal for 

failure to adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Rodriguez claims (1) he did not enter his nolo contendere plea 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, (2) the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying him a hearing on his motion to invalidate or withdraw 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1).
J-S04021-17

- 2 -

his nolo contendere plea, and (3) the court sentenced him excessively. See

Rodriguez’s Brief at 7.2 The Commonwealth contends that all issues raised 

in this appeal have been waived for failure to properly develop any 

arguments in the brief,3and we agree. 

Appellate briefs must conform to the Rule of Appellate Procedure. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Where an appellant sets forth no argument whatsoever in 

support of his claim, the claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. 

Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 502 (Pa. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 92 

(2016), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014) 

(holding “[w]here an appellate brief fails to ... develop an issue in any other 

meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the 

obligation of an appellate court to formulate appellant's arguments for him.” 

(internal quotations omitted)). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring 

argument in appellate briefs contain “such discussion and citation of 

authorities as are deemed pertinent”). Further, “if the defects are in the 

____________________________________________

2 Rodriguez filed a post sentence motion to invalidate his nolo contendere

plea and a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which were denied by the 

trial court. Rodriguez’s post sentence motions “requested that the plea be 

vacated because his free will was overcome by his mental health disorders, 

his mother’s terminal illness, abuse he was facing by other inmates in the 

county prison and overall pressure about what other’s [sic] believed he had 

done. [Rodriguez] also complained that the sentence was too harsh and 

excessive.” Rodriguez’s Brief at 8. 

3 See Commonwealth Brief at 5.
J-S04021-17

- 3 -

brief of the appellant ... and are substantial, the appeal may be quashed or 

dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

The entire argument section for the three issues raised on appeal 

spans one and one-half pages. Each issue is discussed with perfunctory 

legal citation, followed two or three conclusory sentences. There is no 

factual discussion or analysis to demonstrate the trial judge’s error in 

denying Rodriguez’s post sentence motions to invalidate the nolo contendere

plea and for reconsideration of sentence. As such, we deem the defects in 

Rodriguez’s brief to be sufficiently substantial to preclude any meaningful 

review. We therefore elect to exercise our discretion under Rule 2101 and 

dismiss this appeal.4

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2017

____________________________________________

4 The trial court has authored a comprehensive opinion that fully addresses 

and cogently rejects the claims raised by Rodriguez in the post sentence 

motions. If we were to reach the issues raised by Rodriguez, we would 

affirm on the basis of the August 17, 2016, opinion of the Honorable Jennifer 

R. Sletvold.