Court Opinion

ID: 9839670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 18:07:57.833836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:57.825239
License: Public Domain

J-S09041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
  ADAM RESLINK                                   :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 1189 WDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 9, 2022
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000672-2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                          FILED: September 13, 2023

        Adam Michael Reslink (“Reslink”) appeals from the denial of his second

petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We

dismiss the appeal.

        A jury found Reslink guilty of a series of crimes relating to sexual contact

with his nephew when the child was between the ages of eight and eleven.

See Commonwealth v. Reslink, 257 A.3d 21, 22 (Pa. Super. 2020). This

Court affirmed Reslink’s judgments of sentence and denied his subsequent

reargument petition On March 2, 2021. See id. Reslink did not file a petition

for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

        On May 21, 2021, Reslink filed a pro se PCRA petition challenging, inter

alia, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The court appointed counsel, who

filed   a   supplemental     PCRA     petition   alleging   Reslink’s   trial   counsel’s
____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S09041-23

ineffectiveness, and the deprivation of counsel because the trial court forced

Reslink to proceed to trial without standby counsel. See Supplemental PCRA

Petition, 8/31/21. The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the

petition in which it stated that it granted Reslink the right to represent himself

at trial after a Grazier2 hearing, and his pro se claims were not cognizable,

vague and generalized. See Notice, 9/30/21. The PCRA court dismissed the

petition on October 21, 2021, and Reslink did not appeal.

       Reslink filed pro se a second PCRA petition, alleging, inter alia, first PCRA

counsel’s failure to appeal the denial of “unaddressed issues” in his PCRA

petition. See PCRA Petition 6/21/22. The PCRA court issued a notice of intent

to dismiss Reslink’s petition, stating that the petition was untimely, prior PCRA

counsel did not abandon Reslink, and he failed to show his claims were not

previously litigated or waived. See Notice, 8/18/22. The PCRA court denied

Reslink’s PCRA petition. See Order, 9/9/22. Reslink filed a notice of appeal,

and he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Before we can address the merits of Reslink’s issues, we must consider

whether the defects in his brief require dismissal of the appeal. Appellate

briefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules

of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”), and this Court may dismiss an appeal if

the defects in the brief are substantial. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing that

“if the defects . . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal . . . may

____________________________________________

2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).

                                           -2-
J-S09041-23

be . . . dismissed”); see also Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798,

804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (asserting that although the Court liberally construes

a pro se litigant’s filings, he enjoys no special benefit and must comply with

the requisite procedural rules). An appellant must present arguments that

are sufficiently developed for our review in a brief with pertinent discussion,

references   to   the   record,   and   citations   to   legal   authorities.   See

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). “This Court

will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an

appellant.” Id; see also Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa.

Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant’s failure to support his claim with

factual background and citations to the record represented “serious deviations

from the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appella[te] Procedure,” and

waives his review of the claim) (citation omitted).

      Reslink’s brief is substantially defective.        It lacks a statement of

jurisdiction (see Pa.R.A.P. 2114), a statement of order in question (see

Pa.R.A.P. 2115), a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of

review (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the questions involved

(see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4)), a statement of the case (see Pa.R.A.P. 2117), and

a summary of argument (see Pa.R.A.P. 2118). Of even greater importance,

it lacks any references to, or discussion of, applicable legal standards,

statutes, or case law. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the argument

shall be followed by the discussion and citation of pertinent authorities). Nor

does the brief direct this Court to the places in the record where the matters

                                        -3-
J-S09041-23

he refers to can be found. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) (providing that where the

argument references evidence or other matter, it must set forth a reference

to the place in the record where that matter may be found); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(d)

(providing that where a finding of fact is argued, the argument must contain

a synopsis of all evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in the

record where the evidence may be found). As noted, we will not act as an

appellant’s counsel and develop arguments as to the issues raised in this

appeal, including the timeliness of Reslink’s second PCRA petition.       See

Commonwealth v. Woods, 179 A.3d 37, 42 (Pa. Super. 2017), citing 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (stating that a PCRA petition shall be filed within one year

of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, the PCRA’s timeliness

requirements are jurisdictional, and the petitioner bears the burden of

pleading and proving the timeliness of his petition or a qualifying exception).

Reslink failed to offer any such proof and we will not attempt to do so on his

behalf.

      Reslink’s failure to conform with our appellate rules leaves this Court

unable to meaningfully review the substance of his issues compelling the

dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

      Appeal dismissed.

                                     -4-
J-S09041-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/13/2023

                          -5-