Court Opinion

ID: 9948211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 17:14:43.939835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:19.249099
License: Public Domain

J-A01020-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GUILIN WANG                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1034 EDA 2023

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 17, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-SA-0000674-2022

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 March 17, 2023. After careful review,

we conclude Wang’s brief violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure to such a degree that it impedes our review. Therefore, we dismiss

this appeal.

         On September 8, 2023, Officer Rutecki filed a citation for disorderly

conduct against Wang. After a summary trial, Wang was found guilty and

sentenced to pay a fine. Wang appealed the summary conviction to the trial

court.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01020-24

       On March 17, 2023, after a de novo trial, the trial court found Wang

guilty and sentenced him to no further penalty. This timely appeal followed.1

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

consisting of just over one page of text, followed by six pages of pictures,

violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Notably, these

pictures are not the same photographs that were admitted during trial. The

state of Wang’s brief is such that we cannot 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

____________________________________________

1 The trial court docket indicates the notice of appeal was filed on April 17,

2023. However, the notice of appeal transmitted to this Court has a date
stamp of April 18, 2023. This Court issued a rule to show cause why the instant
appeal should not be quashed as untimely filed on April 18, 2023, from the
judgment of sentence imposed on March 17, 2023.

In response, Wang indicated that he timely filed the notice of appeal on April
17, 2023, as he could not file on the weekend while the court was closed.
Wang attached a copy of the notice of appeal to his response, which had a
timestamp of April 17, 2023.

The thirtieth day from the judgment of sentence was Sunday, April 16, 2023.
See 1. Pa.C.S. § 1908 (for computations of time, if the last day of any such
period shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or on a legal holiday, such day shall
be omitted from the computation); Commonwealth v. Fill, 202 A.3d 133,
138 (Pa. Super. 2019) (filing 32 days after the entry of the order was still
timely due to the weekend and holiday schedule). As it appears the timestamp
on the notice of appeal transmitted to this Court was an error and Wang’s
notice of appeal was correctly filed on April 17, 2023, this appeal is timely.

                                           -2-
J-A01020-24

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
      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 has waived his issues on appeal.

                                      -3-
J-A01020-24

      We note, even if not waived, Wang would likely not be entitled to relief.

A liberal review of the claims we can discern from Wang’s brief leads us to

conclude that the trial court did not commit an error of law or an abuse of

discretion. It appears his argument consists of two claims; that the court made

its judgment based on lies told by his neighbor and the police, and that his

trial counsel was ineffective. As far as his neighbor and the police telling “lies”,

the issue is one of credibility. This Court has no authority to overturn the trial

court’s credibility determinations in this matter. Our Court generally defers "to

the credibility determinations of the trial court as to witnesses who appeared

before it." Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720, 724 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation

omitted). Moreover, it is well established that the finder of fact is free to

believe all, part, or none of the evidence and it is within the province of the

trial judge, sitting without a jury, to judge credibility of the witnesses and

weigh their testimony. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 546 A.2d 1173, 1182

(Pa. Super. 1988). Consequently, credibility determinations are generally not

subject to review. See id. The trial court found the neighbor and police to be

credible. Therefore, such a claim would be unavailing.

      As to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, such a claim would

have to await collateral review. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d

562, 576 (Pa. 2013).

                                       -4-
J-A01020-24

     As we conclude Wang has waived his issues on appeal by providing this

Court with a deficient appellate brief impeding our review, we dismiss the

appeal.

     Appeal dismissed.

Date: 3/06/2024

                                  -5-