Court Opinion

ID: 9398985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 16:12:36.508564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.798544
License: Public Domain

J-S17015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MANSOOR VIQAR SAYYED                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1393 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-02-SA-0001014-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED: JUNE 1, 2023

        Mansoor Viqar Sayyed appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence,

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his

summary conviction for disorderly conduct.1 We quash.

        The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows:

        [Sayyed] filed a summary appeal from a conviction in the
        Magisterial District Court for disorderly conduct[.]

        During the de novo hearing of November 4, 2022, Officer Carl
        Rech, with the Brentwood Police Department, testified that while
        he was off duty, he witnessed [Sayyed] outside the public library
        urinating on a tree with children and adults nearby. He informed
        Brentwood Police Officer Davidson, who was on duty, what he had
        witnessed. Officer Davidson issued a summons to [Sayyed].

        [Sayyed] argued that he has a medical condition and needed to
        relieve himself immediately or he would have had an accident.
____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).
J-S17015-23

      However, Officer Davidson testified that [Sayyed] was 25 or 30
      feet from the library and could have used the public bathroom in
      the library’s lobby.

      This court found [Sayyed] guilty following a de novo hearing on
      November 4, 2022, imposed a fine of $100.00, and waived the
      costs. [Sayyed] filed a timely [pro se] appeal to the Pennsylvania
      Superior Court on November 28, 2022. This court ordered
      [Sayyed] to file a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [concise] statement of []
      errors complained of on appeal on December 2, 2022, which was
      filed on December 19, 2022.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/20/23, at [1-2] (paragraphs reordered; citations to

record and unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Sayyed raises the following claim in his statement of the questions

involved: “Whether [Sayyed’s] sentencing, pursuant to the hearing[,] was

lawful or not is the question[,] especially concerning his disability[,] as the

officer never knew or even asked him a reason at the time.” Brief of Appellant,

at 3 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).

      Prior to addressing the merits of Sayyed’s claim, we must determine

whether it is waived. In its brief, the Commonwealth asks us to deny relief

because Sayyed’s brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Specifically, the Commonwealth notes that Sayyed’s

      statement of the questions involved seemingly purports to raise a
      sentencing claim. However, this “question” is inconsistent with
      [Sayyed’s] “argument[,” which] is an alphabetical list of
      grievances with those involved with his case[,] including the court,
      the prosecutor, and the police officers. [Sayyed] also includes
      some personal information that he apparently believes provides a
      basis for relief.

Brief of Appellee, at 8 (citations and unnecessary capitalization omitted). The

Commonwealth further notes that Sayyed also fails to develop any argument,

                                     -2-
J-S17015-23

with citation to the record or pertinent authority, as required by Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a), and that his argument “contains nothing more than an inventory of

purported facts presented in the light most favorable to him.” Id. at 9. We

agree.

      Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court

may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with the

requirements set forth in those rules. Id.; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833

A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003). Although this Court is willing to liberally construe

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit

upon an appellant. Lyons, 883 A.2d at 251-52. To the contrary, any person

choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding “must, to some reasonable

extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove

[his] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.

1996) (citation omitted).

      Because Sayyed’s brief is nothing more than, as the Commonwealth

observes, “an inventory of purported facts presented in the light most

favorable to him,” it does not “allow us to clearly define what[,] exactly[,]

[Sayyed’s] point of controversy is.” Id. Accordingly, we are unable to conduct

meaningful appellate review and are constrained to quash the appeal.

      Appeal quashed.

                                      -3-
J-S17015-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2023

                          -4-