J

- S07023

- 22

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

v.
GEORGE A RUTLEDGE, JR.

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1231 WDA 2021 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 5, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 33

- CR

- 0000031

- 2019 BEFORE: OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. * MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: MAY 02, 2022 George A. Rutledge, Jr., appeals from the order dismissing his second petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)

. 1
W e dism iss th e appeal

. Given our disposition, a detailed factual and procedural history of the

case is unnecessary

. On June 5, 2019, Rutledge entered a guilty plea to one count of persons not to possess firearms and the trial court that heard the plea immediately sentenced him . Rutledge did not file a direct appeal ; therefore , his judgment of sentence became final on July 5, 2019.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S07023

- 22

- 2

-

Rutledge filed a timely PCRA petition , which the PCRA court d ismisse d. Rutledge did not file an appeal of the d ismissal of that petition. Instead, on June 5, 2020 , he filed a timely second PCRA petition

. On October 5, 2020, the PCRA court d ismissed Rutledge’s second petition. Rutledge fi le d a timely notice of appeal on October 28, 2020. 2 In this C ourt , Rutledge has filed a six

page brief which purports to raise numerous issues and sub

- issues for our
review. Before reaching the merits of Rutledge’s issues, we must consider whether the defects in his brief require dismissal of the appeal. A ppellate briefs must co nform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P

. ”) , and this Court may dismiss an appeal if the defect s in the brief are substantial

. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow , 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “ Alt hough th is C ourt i s willing to
construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant , a pro se appellant enjoys

no special benefit . Accordingly, pro s e litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. ” Id

. (citation omitted). It is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. An appellate brief must support its claims with

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 The PCRA court determined that the appeal was untimely. However, f ollowing a procedural history not herein relevant, a prior panel of this Court concluded that Rutledge had been improperly deprived of his right to appellate review by a breakdown in court operations, and reinstated the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Rutledg e , 260 A.3d 149 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum at *4).J

- S07023

- 22

- 3

-

pertinent discussion, references to the record , and citations to legal authorities. Se e Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). “ This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. ” Id

. If a deficient brief hinders this Court’s ability to address any issue on review, the issue will be regarded as waived. See Commonwealth v. Gould , 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding tha t an appellant’s failure to support his claim with factual background and citations to the record represented “serious deviations from the briefing
requ irements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” wa i ving review of the claim ) (citation omitted)

. Rutledge’ s brief fails to comply with multiple r ules of a ppellate
p rocedure

. I t does not co ntain: a statement of jurisdiction ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2114), a statement of order or other determination in question ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2115), a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the questions involved ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4), a s tatement of the case ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2117), or a summary of argument ( s ee Pa.R.A.P. 2118)

. Of even greater importance, Rutledge’s brief is devoid of any references to or discussion of applica ble l egal standards, statutes , or case law. S ee Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the argument shall be followed by the discussion and citation of pertinent authorities)

. Nor does Rutledge’s brief direct this Court to the places in the record where the matters he refer s to can be found. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c)J

- S07023

- 22

- 4

-

(p roviding that where the argument references evidence or other matter, it must set forth a reference to the place in the record where t hat matter may be found ) ; Pa.R.A.P. 2119 ( d ) ( providing that where a finding of fact is argued, the argument must contain a synopsis of all evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in the record where the evidence may be found ).
Gi v en these deficiencies, this C ourt is unable to meaningfully review the
issues R utledge purports to raise. Accor dingly, Rutledge’s fa ilure to conform with our appellate rules compels the dismissal of th e appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing that “if the defects . . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal . . . may be . . . dismissed”). Appeal dismissed

. Judge Pellegrini joins in this decision. Judge Olson concurs in the result. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 05/02/2022