Court Opinion

ID: 9839903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 16:08:54.500842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:02.787315
License: Public Domain

J-S20013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 CAMERON HALL                          :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2096 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 13, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0001012-2010,
           CP-51-CR-0001016-2010, CP-51-CR-0009774-2010

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 CAMERON HALL                          :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2097 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 13, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0001012-2010,
           CP-51-CR-0001016-2010, CP-51-CR-0009774-2010

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 CAMERON HALL                          :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 2098 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 13, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0001012-2010,
J-S20013-23

              CP-51-CR-0001016-2010, CP-51-CR-0009774-2010

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                         FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2023

       Appellant Cameron Hall appeals from the July 13, 2022 order entered in

the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that denied his petition for

postconviction DNA testing pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1.            Due to

significant briefing defects, we are unable to conduct meaningful review. We,

thus, dismiss the appeal.

       A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary for our

disposition. Briefly, in March 2012, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas

to four counts of robbery stemming from a 2009 robbery spree.1 The trial

court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of five to 10 years’

incarceration. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. In 2013, Appellant filed

his first PCRA petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46, which the PCRA court denied following counsel's

Turner/Finley2 no-merit letter. Appellant did not appeal. On December 28,

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i). In addition to the above dockets, Appellant
pleaded guilty to several other cases. However, because Appellant has only
appealed on these three cases, we will limit our review to these cases.

2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), Commonwealth

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -2-
J-S20013-23

2021, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for DNA Testing.3 The PCRA court

dismissed the petition. Appellant then filed a pro se notice of appeal. Both

Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

         Appellant included the following Statement of Questions Involved in his

brief:
         WHETHER the lower courts [sic] Judge erred in the denial of
         appellant's motion, due to the petitioner pleaded [sic] guilty to
         charges that meet the grounds of the crime/office's [sic].

Appellant’s Brief, 1/24/23, at 1.

         Preliminarily, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all

material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also id. at 2114–2119

(addressing specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). “[I]t

is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for

our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with

references      to   the   record   and    with   citations   to   legal   authorities.”

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

citation omitted).

         Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,

an appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to follow the

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739,
____________________________________________

3 Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1.    A motion for DNA testing “shall explain
how. . . after review of the record of the applicant's guilty plea there is a
reasonable probability, that the testing would produce exculpatory evidence
that would establish: (i) the applicant's actual innocence of the offense[.]” 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1(a).

                                           -3-
J-S20013-23

766 (Pa. 2014); see also, Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498

(Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that pro se litigant must “assume that his lack of

expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”). “This Court will not act as

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.”

Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation

omitted). If a deficient brief hinders this Court’s ability to address an issue on

review, we shall consider the issue waived. Commonwealth v. Gould, 912

A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Relevant here, Rule 2116 requires a concise statement of the questions

involved. Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). In his Statement of Questions Presented,

Appellant presents a lengthy and incoherent statement that does not suggest

how the PCRA court erred.           Additionally, Rule 2117 requires “[a] closely

condensed chronological statement, in narrative form,” of all necessary facts

with citations to the record. Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4). Appellant’s statement of

the case includes the basic facts underlying his conviction, a discussion about

his preliminary hearing, and his sentence, but does not address any facts

necessary to show that DNA testing is warranted.

       Moreover, Appellant’s brief raises several issues but only mentions DNA

testing briefly.4 See Appellant’s Br. at 4. He does not reference the record,

____________________________________________

4 Appellant includes arguments regarding ineffective assistance of both plea

counsel and PCRA counsel (from his first PCRA petition), the Confrontation
Clause, and sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction. Appellant’s
Br. at 5-9. Appellant did not raise these issues in his 1925(b) statement or in
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S20013-23

cite any case law regarding DNA testing, or provide any developed argument

relevant to the denial of his request for DNA testing.       Rather, he merely

concludes that testing the robbery victims’ property for DNA would prove his

innocence. Id.

       Appellant’s significant omissions and briefing defects preclude this

Court’s meaningful review.          Accordingly, Appellant has waived appellate

review of any challenge he could have raised to the order denying DNA testing.

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/14/2023

____________________________________________

a separate PCRA petition. Notably, he “cannot use Section 9543.1 to raise
extraneous issues not related to DNA testing in an effort to avoid the one-year
time bar [of a PCRA].” Commonwealth v. Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141, 1148 (Pa.
Super. 2005).

                                           -5-