Court Opinion

ID: 9891130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 16:10:14.610083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:10.551038
License: Public Domain

J-S36038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  SHALETA BARBARA HEYWARD                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 472 EDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003867-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                          FILED OCTOBER 17, 2023

       Appellant, Shaleta Barbara Heyward, appeals pro se from the judgment

of sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, following

her bench trial convictions for the summary offenses of driving vehicle at safe

speed, careless driving, and restriction on alcoholic beverages.1 We dismiss

the appeal.

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

history of this case as follows:

          At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that, on
          April 18, 2022, Corporal Duncan responded to a report that
          Appellant crashed her vehicle into a tree in an embankment
          on the side of the road. At the scene, Appellant was
          combative and resisted Corporal Duncan’s help. Corporal
          Duncan detected an odor of alcohol and later discovered an
          open alcoholic beverage had spilled all over the interior of
____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3361; 3714(a); and 3809(a), respectively.
J-S36038-23

          Appellant’s vehicle. Appellant was transported to police
          headquarters where she refused to submit to a blood test.
          The Commonwealth entered into evidence photographs of
          the vehicle crash and video footage of Appellant’s
          interactions with officers at police headquarters.

          Immediately following the waiver trial, this [c]ourt
          sentenced Appellant to pay the costs of prosecution and
          fines. No further penalty was imposed. On February 3,
          2023, the Bucks County Public Defender’s Office filed a
          Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Appellant’s convictions
          do not qualify her for their representation.5 This [c]ourt
          granted that Motion, and the Bucks County Public
          Defender’s Office provided all discovery and the preliminary
          hearing transcript to Appellant. On February 9, 2023,
          Appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal to the Superior
          Court.

              5 The Bucks County Public Defender’s Office does not

              represent defendants charged with offenses that do
              not carry the possibility of incarceration. Appellant’s
              three convictions carry no mandatory minimum
              penalty of incarceration and this [c]ourt sentenced her
              only to pay costs and fines.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/15/23, at 1-2). On February 15, 2023, the court

ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant did not comply with the court’s order

in a timely manner.2

       Initially, we recognize:

          [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
          conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
          Appellate Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss an
____________________________________________

2 After her concise statement was already due, Appellant sought an extension

of time to file, which the court subsequently denied for lack of good cause
shown. (See id. at 2 n.6). Nevertheless, on May 1, 2023, Appellant filed a
belated Rule 1925(b) statement.

                                           -2-
J-S36038-23

         appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements
         set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
         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 [herself] in a legal proceeding must,
         to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise
         and legal training will be [her] undoing.

Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa.Super. 2005)

(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that briefs

which fail to conform with requirements of rules may be suppressed, and, if

defects in brief are substantial, appeal may be quashed or dismissed).

      Instantly, Appellant’s brief fails to adhere to the rules of appellate

procedure. Appellant’s “brief” consists of a two-page letter, which does not

include, inter alia, the requisite scope and standard of review, a summary of

the argument section, or, most egregiously, a statement of the questions to

be raised on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (stating requirements of each

subsection of brief); Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa.Super.

1993) (stating that omission of statement of issues presented is particularly

grievous since statement of questions involved defines specific issues this

Court is asked to review).       Although Appellant baldly raises claims of

insufficient evidence, lack of due process, and a violation of Appellant’s rights,

she does not provide any citation to legal authority whatsoever to support her

assertions. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided into as

many sections as there are questions presented, followed by discussion with

citation to relevant legal authority).      These substantial defects preclude

                                      -3-
J-S36038-23

meaningful review. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.3

       Appeal dismissed.

Date: 10/17/2023

____________________________________________

3 Appellant has filed an application for relief in this Court, seeking to quash or

dismiss the charges against her. We deny Appellant’s requested relief.

                                           -4-