Court Opinion

ID: 9384026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:08:42.539198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.842749
License: Public Domain

J-A09026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JOSHUA AARON MONIGHAN                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 328 MDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-21-CR-0001479-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:                           FILED: MARCH 31, 2023

       Appellant, Joshua Aaron Monighan, appeals pro se1 from the judgment

of sentence entered on January 20, 2022. We dismiss this appeal.

       On January 20, 2022, following a bench trial, Appellant was found guilty

of possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use, driving an

unregistered vehicle, driving without a license, and driving without evidence

____________________________________________

1 Appellant is not indigent. See N.T. Waiver of Counsel Hearing, 8/19/21, at
3. Further, during an August 19, 2021 hearing before the trial court judge,
Appellant waived his right to be represented by counsel and the trial court
conducted a colloquy to ensure that Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel
was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.       See id. at 3-6; see also
Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A) and (C); Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512,
521 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“once a defendant has made a competent waiver of
counsel, that waiver remains in effect through all subsequent proceedings in
that case absent a substantial change in circumstances”).
J-A09026-23

of an emission inspection.2 That day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to

serve 30 days of probation and to pay fines and the cost of prosecution. N.T.

Sentencing, 1/20/22, at 70-72. On February 18, 2022, Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal.

       Within Appellant’s brief to this Court, Appellant lists 24 separate legal

issues in his statement of questions involved. However, none of the issues

raise any cognizable claim for relief and the vast majority of the issues are

incomprehensible fragments of a sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 11-12.

Further, Appellant does not raise any of the issues in the argument section of

his brief and Appellant’s argument to this Court is unintelligible and

unsupported by either facts or law. See id. at 18-19.

       The failings in Appellant’s brief substantially impede our ability to

conduct meaningful appellate review of Appellant's claims, as we are unable

to discern the issues Appellant wishes this Court to review.       As such, we

dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[b]riefs and reproduced records

shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of [our] rules as

nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they

may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record

of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be

quashed or dismissed.”); see also Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d

____________________________________________

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31)(i) and 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1301(a), 1501(a), and
4706(c)(5), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-A09026-23

1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no

special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply

with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court”).

      Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Oral argument scheduled

for April 12, 2023, cancelled. Request for Certified Legal Intern to Represent

the Commonwealth at oral argument denied as moot.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/31/2023

                                      -3-