Court Opinion

ID: 9948210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 17:14:42.796049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:19.012000
License: Public Domain

J-A01021-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GUILIN WANG                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2993 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-SA-0000278-2022

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.:                           FILED MARCH 6, 2024

       Guilin Wang appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on November 4, 2022. We affirm.

       On February 14, 2022, Bin Yang contacted the Plumstead Township

police department complaining that Wang, his neighbor directly across the

street, directed multiple LED floodlights toward his house. Following his

investigation of the situation, Officer Robert Lawn issued a citation charging

Wang with one count of disorderly conduct.

       On June 8, 2022, the local Magisterial District Court in Bucks County

found Wang guilty of disorderly conduct. Wang appealed the summary

decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. Pursuant to

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01021-24

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462(11), the trial court held a de

novo trial. On November 4, 2022, the trial court found Wang guilty of

disorderly conduct under Pa.C.S.A § 5503(a)(4) and ordered him to pay a

$300.00 fine and costs of prosecution.

      On November 29, 2022, Wang filed a pro se notice of appeal. On April

14, 2023, this Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief. Wang filed

a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal, indicating he did not know a

brief was required. On May 9, 2023, this Court entered an order vacating the

dismissal of Wang’s appeal and granting reinstatement of the appeal.

      Following reinstatement of the appeal, the trial court issued an order on

December 9, 2022, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure

1925(b), directing Wang to file and serve a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal; the statement was to be filed no later than twenty-

one days after the date of the order. The order noted that any issue not

properly included in the statement and timely filed and served would be

deemed waived. See 1925(b) Order, 12/9/22. Wang subsequently filed two

pro se motions to extend the deadline to file the concise statement. The trial

court did not grant or deny either motion. On January 17, 2023, Wang filed a

concise statement, well beyond the requisite 21-day period. On January 27,

2023, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion, in which it stated Wang

had waived all issues on appeal by filing an untimely concise statement.

Nevertheless, the court attempted to address any substantive issues on the

                                      -2-
J-A01021-24

merits that it could discern. The court did so despite finding the concise

statement difficult to follow, and that it failed to properly identify discernible

legal errors.

      Preliminarily, we must address the consequences of Wang’s untimely

filing of his concise statement. Wang had until December 30, 2022, to file his

statement but did not do so until over two weeks later. Further, the trial court

never granted an extension of time.

      In certain situations, we have found that “where the trial court

addresses the issues raised in an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement, we need

not remand but may address the issues on their merits.” Commonwealth v.

Brown, 145 A.3d 184, 186 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also Commonwealth v.

Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (“[I]f there is an

untimely filing, this Court may decide the appeal on the merits if the trial court

had adequate opportunity to prepare an opinion addressing the issues being

raised on appeal”). However, we have since clarified the situations where this

rationale may be applied:

      [W]e note that Brown and Burton apply to counseled
      defendants, rather than those proceeding pro se. This is because
      counsel can be considered to be ineffective per se for failing to file
      a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (“If
      an appellant in a criminal case was ordered to file a Statement
      and failed to do so, such that the appellate court is convinced that
      counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall
      remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc[.]”).
      Accordingly, we consider untimely counseled Rule 1925(b)
      statements on the basis of judicial economy. See Pa.R.A.P.
      1925(c)(3), cmt.

                                      -3-
J-A01021-24

      It is a longstanding principle that a pro se litigant cannot be
      ineffective on his or her own behalf. See Commonwealth v.
      Fletcher, 986 A.2d 759, 773 (Pa. 2009) (“The law prohibits a
      defendant who chooses to represent himself from alleging his own
      ineffectiveness.”). Accordingly, our rationale for considering an
      untimely Rule 1925(b) statement disappears where it is filed by a
      pro se litigant.

Commonwealth v. Boniella, 158 A.3d 162, 164 (Pa. Super. 2017). As Wang

is proceeding pro se on appeal, we are constrained to find that Wang’s issues

in the instant appeal are waived.

      In any event, Wang would not be entitled to relief even if his Rule

1925(b) statement had been timely filed. It is well-established that any issue

not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate

review. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).

Further, an appellant’s concise statement must identify the errors with

sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify and address the issues the

appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (requiring a

Rule 1925(b) statement to “concisely identify each ruling or error that the

appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent

issues for the judge”). A Rule 1925(b) concise statement that is too vague can

result in waiver of issues on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778

A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“a concise statement which is too vague

to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional

equivalent of no concise statement at all”).

                                      -4-
J-A01021-24

       In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court found Wang waived his claims by

filing an untimely concise statement. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/27/22, at 2.

The trial court also noted that it found the concise statement difficult to follow,

and that it failed to properly identify discernable legal errors. See id. The trial

court was diligent in guessing and attempting to address the merits of the

claim.1 However, when an issue on appeal is so vague that the appellate court

must guess at what it is, there can be no meaningful appellate review and the

issue is waived. See Dowling, 778 A.2d at 686; see also Commonwealth

v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 912 (Pa. Super. 2002) (finding even if the trial

court correctly guesses the issues an appellant raises on appeal and writes an

opinion pursuant to that supposition, the issue is still waived).

       Further, after careful review, we conclude Wang’s brief on appeal

violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The state of Wang’s

brief is such that we would not be able to conduct a meaningful review. “When

a party’s brief fails to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the

defects are substantial, this Court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss the

appeal pursuant to Rule 2101.” Giant Food Stores, LLC v. THF Silver

Spring Development, L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 443 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing

Pa.R.A.P. 2101). Additionally,

       [w]hile this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by
       a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
       particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our
____________________________________________

1 We commend the trial court in its attempt to understand Wang’s filings.

                                           -5-
J-A01021-24

      supreme court has explained, any 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.

Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super.

2006) (citations omitted).

      Here, Wang’s brief violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing

to include a statement of the court’s jurisdiction, this Court’s scope and

standard of review, a statement of the order in question, and a summary of

his argument as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Further, Wang fails to include

a statement of place of raising or preservation of issues pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

2117(c), and utterly fails to include citation to the record or discussion of and

citation to authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (c); see also Eichman v.

McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“The Rules of Appellate

Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be

supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.”). Wang’s

argument is undeveloped and scattershot. This Court will not act as counsel

and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. See In re R.D., 44

A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012). Due to these substantial defects, we find

Wang’s issues would be waived for this reason as well.

      As we conclude Wang has waived his issues on appeal in more than one

manner, we affirm the judgment of sentence. The appeal would have been

dismissed had we not found waiver.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -6-
J-A01021-24

Date: 3/06/2024

                  -7-