Court Opinion

ID: 9892364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 17:12:01.575726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:43.389242
License: Public Domain

J-S33040-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JERMAINE DARNELL GILLESPIE                   :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 247 WDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 20, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-25-CR-0001822-2021

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                      FILED: October 23, 2023

       Appellant Jermaine Gillespie appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas following a traffic

stop that led to Appellant’s conviction on seven counts. We quash.

       The relevant facts and procedural history have been set forth by the trial

court as follows:

              Defendant was the subject of a motor vehicle stop for
       suspected violation of the window tint provisions of the Motor
       Vehicle Code on July 7, 2021 in the City of Erie, Pennsylvania. The
       Pennsylvania State Trooper who initiated the stop determined that
       Defendant's driver's license was suspended at the time and also
       detected the odor of fresh marijuana emanating from the vehicle.
       Defendant informed the officer that he had a medical marijuana
       card. In response to questioning about whether Defendant had
       any drugs or weapons in the vehicle, he denied having any
       marijuana in the car at the time; however, he did inform the
       officer that he had ecstasy pills in the vehicle.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33040-23

            The officer requested permission to search the vehicle,
     which the Defendant granted. The Trooper found 80-90 ecstasy
     pills and a container holding marijuana in a bag inside in the car.
     Defendant was arrested, and the Criminal Complaint was filed on
     July 7, 2021 charging him with Count 1 - Manufacture, Delivery,
     or Possession With Intent to Manufacture or Deliver (Ecstasy)(F);
     Count 2 - Possession (Ecstasy)(M); Count 3 - Possession
     (Marijuana)(M); Count 4 - Driving While Operating Privileges are
     Suspended or Revoked (S); Count 5 - Obstructed Window (S);
     Count 6 - Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Plastic
     Baggie)(M); Count 7 - Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
     (Plastic Container)(M).
            A preliminary hearing was held on July 23, 2021 at which
     time Defendant was represented by privately-retained counsel. All
     charges were bound over for court at the conclusion of the
     hearing.
            On September 27, 2021, counsel for Defendant sought an
     extension of time to file a file an omnibus pre-trial motion and
     specifically waived the Rule 600 time for her client through
     January 30, 2022. Counsel filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion
     raising several suppression issues. The Court held an evidentiary
     hearing on the Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion on December 16, 2021,
     at which time Defendant was represented by counsel. The Court
     denied the Motion by Opinion and Order dated February 23, 2022.
            At Defendant's request, counsel filed a Motion for Leave to
     Withdraw as Counsel on March 8, 2022. The request to withdraw
     was granted, and a pro se colloquy was held on April 5, 2022.
            Following counsel's withdrawal, Defendant filed several pro
     se requests for transcripts, motions to continue, motions to
     dismiss, a petition for habeas corpus, motions for hearings, a
     motion to quash, and a motion to dismiss for Rule 600 violation.
     The Court held several hearings on the motions prior to issuing
     decisions. In addition to the Defendant's pre-trial motions, the
     Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend Information to conform
     [sic] the identity of the suspected controlled substances to results
     of laboratory testing, which was granted.
            Defendant went to jury trial on September 12, 2022 with
     stand-by counsel. He was found guilty on all counts on September
     14, 2022, and scheduled to be sentenced on November 22, 2022.
     On September 13, 2022, during the pendency of his trial,
     Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking review of [the trial
     c]ourt's Order of July 5, 2022 denying his habeas corpus petition.
     Defendant filed a second Notice of Appeal on September 22, 2022
     seeking review of [the trial c]ourt's Order of December 16, 2021,

                                    -2-
J-S33040-23

      denying his motion to suppress. Defendant's sentencing hearing
      was cancelled pending the resolution of Defendant's appeals. Both
      appeals were quashed as interlocutory.
            Defendant was subsequently sentenced on December 20,
      2022 as follows:
            Count 1: 33 months to 66 months incarceration, consecutive
            to the sentence at 1717-2017;
            Count 2: merged with Count 1;
            Count 3: 3 months to 12 months incarceration, consecutive
            to Count 1;
            Count 4: $200 fine, no further penalty;
            Count 5: $25 fine, no further penalty;
            Count 6: 1 year of state probation, consecutive to Count 3;
            and Count 7: 1 year of state probation, concurrent to Count
            6; with credit for time served and court costs.
            Defendant filed a Post-Sentence Motion which was dated
      January 6, 2023, postmarked January 9, 2023, and received by
      the Court on January 11, 2023. By Order dated January 13, 2023,
      the Court denied the Post-Sentence Motion as untimely because
      the Post-Sentence Motion was filed beyond the applicable 10-day
      period even if the January 6, 2023 were accepted as the effective
      date for filing.
            Defendant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Clerk of
      Court's Office on January 19, 2023. The Court issued a 1925(b)
      Order on January 24, 2023. It was subsequently determined that
      Defendant did not have IFP status at the time the Notice of Appeal
      was filed, and it was returned to him for corrections to indicate if
      he was requesting IFP. Defendant timely responded with the IFP
      application, and IFP status was granted on February 22, 2023.

Tr. Ct. Op. 3/20/23, at 1-4.

      Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the

requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.          Pa.R.A.P.

2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter

may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:

      [A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
      by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
      benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d
      1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant

                                      -3-
J-S33040-23

      must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
      Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. This Court may quash or
      dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the
      requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
      Procedure. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa.Super. 2014)

(citations omitted).

      Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates

that the brief of the appellant shall consist of the following matters, separately

and distinctly entitled and in the following order:

      (1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
      (2) Order or other determination in question.
      (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of
      review.
      (4) Statement of the questions involved.
      (5) Statement of the case.
      (6) Summary of argument.
      (7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the
      discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.
      (8) Argument for appellant.
      (9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
      (10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and
      (c) of this rule.
      (11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors
      complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to
      Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a
      statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
      1925(b) was entered.
      (12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and
      2135(d).

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

      In the case sub judice, Appellant has not attempted to structure his brief

to comply with the Rule 2111(a) requirements, thus hampering effective

appellate review. Sanford, supra. Specifically, Appellant’s brief contains one

                                      -4-
J-S33040-23

heading entitled “BRIEF” wherein he sets forth seven pages combining his

version of factual events with bald assertions of error.

      Relevantly, aside from a final request for the court to “dismiss all

charges,” his brief contains no statement of jurisdiction, no order in question,

no statement of scope and standard of review, no statement of questions

involved, no statement of the case, no summary of argument, and no

coherent, developed argument.        See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).         While he has

attached the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion to his brief, he has not attached

a copy of his Rule 1925(b) statement.

      As this Court has held:

      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. The Rules of
      Appellate Procedure clearly provide that an appeal may be
      quashed “if the defects are in the brief…of the appellant and are
      substantial[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Sanford, 445 A.2d at 150-51 (citing Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 396 A.2d

29 (Pa.Super. 1978)) (other citations omitted).         See Commonwealth v.

Merwine, 1651 MDA 2022, 2023 WL 4487770 (Pa.Super. filed 6/12/23)

(unpublished memorandum) (dismissing appeal where the appellate brief

failed to conform to Rule 2111(a)); Commonwealth v. Nachmenson, 540

MDA    2020,   248   A.3d    497   (Pa.Super.   filed    1/22/21)    (unpublished

memorandum) (quashing appeal where the defects in the pro se brief were

substantial and prevented meaningful review); K.B. v. D.A.P., 598 MDA 2021,

2021 WL 4739422 (Pa.Super. filed 10/12/21) (unpublished memorandum)

                                      -5-
J-S33040-23

(quashing appeal where the appellate brief failed to raise or properly address

any issues); Commonwealth v. Bradbury, 530 MDA 2021, 2021 WL

4593392 (Pa.Super. filed 10/6/21) (unpublished memorandum) (dismissing

appeal due to wholly defective brief); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 1288

MDA 2020, 2021 WL 1743018, *2 (Pa.Super. filed 5/3/21) (unpublished

memorandum) (quashing appeal due to defective appellate brief and noting it

is not our duty to give pro se litigants a “do over” based on their lack of legal

knowledge).1

       As in the cases cited supra, we find the defects in Appellant’s brief are

substantial so as to preclude effective appellate review. We recognize that

Appellant is proceeding pro se in this appeal. However, we decline to become

Appellant’s counsel. While we are willing to construe liberally materials filed

by a pro se litigant, “[a]ny layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal

proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of

expertise and legal training will prove her undoing.” Commonwealth v.

Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa.Super. 1996) (citation omitted).

       Based on the aforementioned, we quash this appeal.

       Appeal quashed.

____________________________________________

1 We note that, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential

decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their
persuasive value. We find guidance in the unpublished memorandums cited
supra and find them to be persuasive in this matter.

                                           -6-
J-S33040-23

Date: 10/23/2023

                   -7-