J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

MALANO DARNELL JONES, : No. 24 WDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0001861-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

MALANO DARNELL JONES, : No. 25 WDA 2019

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0001862-2017

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 03, 2020

Malano Darnell Jones appeals, pro se, from the December 4, 2018 

judgments of sentence1 entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

 

1 These appeals were consolidated sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 2 -

following his convictions of two counts each of possession of a controlled 

substance with intent to deliver (“PWID”) and possession of a controlled 

substance, and one count each of possession of drug paraphernalia, fleeing or 

attempting to elude officer, careless driving, and disorderly conduct.2 After 

careful review, we affirm.3

The facts of this case are not germane to the disposition; therefore, we 

need not include them. The procedural history of this case is as follows: The 

Commonwealth charged appellant with the above-referenced crimes at trial 

court Docket Nos. CP-25-CR-0001861-2017 (two counts each of PWID and 

possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia) and CP-25-CR-0001862-2017 (fleeing or attempting to elude 

officer, careless driving, and disorderly conduct) as the result of an incident 

occurring on April 26, 2017. Because the charges stem from the same set of 

facts, the two docket numbers were consolidated for trial. (See trial court 

opinion, 4/30/19 at 1.)

Following a trial, in which appellant appeared pro se,

4 a jury convicted 

appellant of the aforementioned offenses, with the exception of disorderly 

 

2 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), and (32), 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3733(a) and 

3714(a), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4), respectively.

3 We note that the Commonwealth did not file a brief at either docket number 

in this case.

4 The trial court held a Grazier hearing on April 5 and 6, 2018. See 

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 3 -

conduct and careless driving,

5 on April 17, 2018. The trial court imposed 

sentence on June 5, 2018. Appellant filed timely pro se post-sentence 

motions, in which he alleged multiple trial court errors and requested a new 

trial. On July 5, 2018, the trial court granted appellant’s post-sentence 

motions, vacated his judgment of sentence, and granted appellant a new trial.

Following the second trial, in which appellant appeared pro se,

6 a jury 

convicted appellant of the aforementioned offenses, with the exception of 

careless driving on October 8, 2018. The trial court convicted appellant of 

careless driving. On December 4, 2018, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

an aggregate term of 9 to 231⁄2 months’ incarceration, to be followed by two 

years’ probation.

Appellant filed timely counseled notices of appeal on January 3, 2019.7 

The trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and appellant timely 

 

5 The disorderly conduct charge was not considered by the jury during the 

April 17, 2018 trial. (See notes of testimony, 4/17/18 at 137.) The trial court 

convicted appellant of careless driving. (See id. at 140.)

6 The trial court held a Grazier hearing on July 24, 2018. Khadija W. Horton, 

Esq., of the Erie County Public Defender’s Office, served as standby counsel 

at trial and sentencing.

7 We note that appellant filed two separate notices of appeal in compliance 

with our supreme court’s directive in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 

969 (Pa. 2018) (requiring separate notices of appeal from an order resolving 

issues arising on more than one docket).
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 4 -

complied. The trial court subsequently filed an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

On May 21, 2019, appellant filed a pro se amended concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal, in addition to a pro se motion for counsel 

to withdraw so that appellant could proceed pro se on direct appeal. The trial 

court held a Grazier hearing on July 30, 2019. Following the Grazier hearing, 

the trial court granted appellant’s motion and counsel withdrew her 

appearance. The record further reflects that counsel filed an application to 

withdraw as counsel with this court, which we granted on August 9, 2019.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of 

discretion and/or error of law when it denied 

appellants [sic] motion to suppress where 

appellant was not the target of the investigation 

and where there was no probable cause to 

arrest and detain the appellant, nor was the 

appellant mentioned in the four corners of the 

search warrant?

2. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of 

discretion and/or error of law when it denied 

appellants [sic] motion to suppress where there 

was no search warrant or affidavit filed on 

record with the clerk of court [sic] pursuant to 

the rule?

Appellant’s brief at 4.8

 

8 Appellant filed identical briefs at both docket numbers; however, he only 

challenges the search relating to the drug offenses charged at trial court 

Docket No. CP-25-CR-0001861-2017.
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 5 -

In his first issue, appellant contends that a search warrant issued for a 

search of 3425 Maple Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, “made no mention of [] 

appellant either committing a crime or being a suspect for drug activity at this 

residence or a resident of the residence in question.” (Id. at 7.) Appellant 

further argues that the “officers in this case who arrested [] appellant had no 

probable cause to believe that [] appellant committed a crime or was in the

process of committing a crime, when they pulled appellant over, one that 

would justify the arrest and detention of [] appellant.” (Id.)

“It is well-established that when issues are not properly raised and 

developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific 

issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” 

Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation, 

quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. 

Charleston, 94 A.3d 1012, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2014), citing Commonwealth 

v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa.Super. 2007) (“We shall not develop 

an argument for [the appellant], nor shall we scour the record to find evidence 

to support an argument . . .”); Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1089

(Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 110 A.3d 998 (Pa. 2014) (citations

omitted). Finally, we note that while Pennsylvania appellate courts historically 

have liberally construed materials filed by pro se litigants, a litigant’s pro se

status does not entitle the litigant to any special benefit. Commonwealth v. 

Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Blakeney 
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 6 -

v. Pennsylvania, 135 S.Ct. 2817 (2015). “[A] court cannot be expected to 

become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than 

is fairly conveyed in the pleading.” Id.

Aside from two cursory references to our Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

appellant fails to develop his argument further than his broad claims noted 

above. Accordingly, appellant waived his first issue on appeal.

In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it denied appellant’s suppression motion because a search 

warrant and affidavit were not filed with the Erie County Clerk of Courts. 

(Appellant’s brief at 8.)

This issue is not included in the concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal filed by appellant’s counsel prior to the July 30, 2019 Grazier

hearing. Likewise, appellant failed to include this issue in his pro se amended 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Issues not included in 

a Rule 1925(b) statement are waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Indeed, our 

supreme court has also stated that, “[a]ny issues not raised in a 1925(b) 

statement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 

309 (Pa. 1998); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 

(Pa. 2005). Accordingly, appellant’s second issue is waived on appeal.

Even if appellant were to have preserved this issue in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement, we would nonetheless find waiver. Indeed, in his one-paragraph 

argument, appellant baldly claims that the search warrant at issue was not 
J. A02043/20

J. A02044/20

- 7 -

filed with the Erie County Clerk of Courts. Appellant fails to develop his 

argument any further with citations to the record or relevant case law, thereby 

necessitating waiver. See, e.g., Tchirkow, 160 A.3d at 804.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/03/2020