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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

We dismiss the 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 dismissed. 

Rutledge did not file an appeal of the dismissal of that petition. Instead, on 

June 5, 2020, he filed a timely second PCRA petition. On October 5, 2020, 

the PCRA court dismissed Rutledge’s second petition. Rutledge filed a timely 

notice of appeal on October 28, 2020.2In this Court, Rutledge has filed a sixpage 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. Appellate 

briefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules 

of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”), and this Court may dismiss an appeal if 

the defects in the brief are substantial. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 

160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). “Although this Court is willing to 

construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys 

no special benefit. Accordingly, pro se 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, 

following 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. Rutledge, 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. See 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 

that an appellant’s failure to support his claim with factual background and 

citations to the record represented “serious deviations from the briefing 

requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” waiving review of the 

claim) (citation omitted).

Rutledge’s brief fails to comply with multiple rules of appellate 

procedure. It does not contain: a statement of jurisdiction (see Pa.R.A.P. 

2114), a statement of order or other determination in question (see Pa.R.A.P. 

2115), a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review 

(see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the questions involved (see

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4), a statement of the case (see Pa.R.A.P. 2117), or a 

summary of argument (see Pa.R.A.P. 2118). Of even greater importance, 

Rutledge’s brief is devoid of any references to or discussion of applicable legal 

standards, statutes, or case law. See 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 refers to can be found. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) 
J-S07023-22

- 4 -

(providing that where the argument references evidence or other matter, it 

must set forth a reference to the place in the record where that 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). 

Given these deficiencies, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the 

issues Rutledge purports to raise. Accordingly, Rutledge’s failure to conform 

with our appellate rules compels the dismissal of the 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