Court Opinion

ID: 9905539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:17.908698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:41.118339
License: Public Domain

J-A26040-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN RE: DANIEL NOBLES                      :       IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :            PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 APPEAL OF: DANIEL NOBLES                  :          No. 2667 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered October 4, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-MD-0004213-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                          FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2023

      Appellant, Daniel Nobles, appeals pro se from the order entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion for

return of property. We dismiss the appeal.

      In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural

history of this case as follows:

         This is a petition brought by Appellant…for the return of
         property pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 588. [Appellant] filed his
         petition on December 16, 2021, following the dismissal of
         charges in a related criminal case [at No. CP-51-CR-2412-
         2020]. [Appellant] sought the return of a .40 caliber Smith
         & Wesson handgun which was seized when he was arrested
         on May 17, 2020. According to his petition, the criminal
         charges against him ultimately were dismissed and
         therefore he seeks the return of the seized property.

                                   *   *       *

         On October 4, 2022, a hearing was held where the
         Commonwealth presented the following facts surrounding
J-A26040-23

        the charges in the criminal case. [Appellant] gave a
        statement to the police that during an argument with a
        female neighbor, an unknown male punched him two to
        three times. [Appellant] drew and pointed his firearm at the
        male who fled from the scene.         Later that evening,
        [Appellant] went for a walk towards Adam Avenue where an
        unknown, unarmed male ran at him. [Appellant] stated that
        he drew his gun and shot the unarmed male in the leg. The
        police arrived, saw that the male was on the ground
        unconscious, bleeding heavily and transported him to the
        hospital where he underwent surgery for a gunshot wound.
        [Appellant] was charged with Aggravated Assault,
        [Possessing] Instruments of Crime, Simple Assault and
        Recklessly Endangering Another Person. The case was
        dismissed on the Commonwealth’s motion for a nolle
        prosequi on November 23, 2021.

        This court denied [Appellant’s] petition for return of the
        firearm. The court found that [Appellant] had the ability to
        retreat and that his life was not in danger and therefore he
        was irresponsible in shooting an unarmed man in the leg
        causing serious injuries. The court further found that
        although the underlying criminal charges against
        [Appellant] were ultimately withdrawn, [Appellant’s]
        explanation for shooting the unarmed male was not
        credible. This court further found that there was sufficient
        nexus between the use of the gun in shooting the individual
        and criminal conduct and although the charges [were]
        withdrawn, the gun was derivative contraband because it
        was used in the preparation of an unlawful act. …

        On October 14, 2022, [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal.
        On November 2, 2022, this court issued an order pursuant
        to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing [Appellant] to file a Concise
        Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.               …
        [Appellant did not comply with the court’s order].

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/17/23, at 1-4, unnumbered) (footnotes omitted).

     Preliminarily, we recognize:

        [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
        conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
        Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash

                                    -2-
J-A26040-23

         or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the
         requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
         Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to
         liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
         status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
         contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal
         proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his
         lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610

Pa. 600, 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (some internal citations omitted).         See also

Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of each subsection of

appellate brief).

      Instantly, Appellant’s brief on appeal is completely inadequate as it

lacks, inter alia, the necessary statement of jurisdiction, relevant scope and

standard of review, statement of questions presented, statement of the case,

and any cogent argument section.          See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (discussing

required content of appellate briefs). See also Smathers v. Smathers, 670

A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super. 1996) (stating noncompliance with Rule 2116 is

particularly grievous because statement of questions involved defines specific

issues for review). Instead, Appellant’s brief is largely a copy-and-paste of

the trial court’s opinion with a few sentences incorporating Appellant’s version

of events or assertions.    Notably, Appellant even repeats the trial court’s

statements which are contrary to his own argument. Appellant cites no law

whatsoever to support his claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Rather, the only

law cited is the law from the trial court opinion supporting the court’s analysis

of why Appellant is not entitled to relief. These substantial defects preclude

                                      -3-
J-A26040-23

meaningful review, warranting suppression of Appellant’s brief and dismissal

of the appeal.1 Thus, we suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss his appeal.

       Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from argument list.

Date: 11/27/2023

____________________________________________

1 Further, as the trial court explained, Appellant did not comply with the court’s

Rule 1925(b) order. Thus, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s claims
on appeal are also waived on this basis. (See Trial Court Opinion at 4,
unnumbered). See also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle
Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (holding appellant’s
failure to comply with trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order constitutes waiver of
issues for appellate review).

                                           -4-