Com. v. Bradford, C.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 6, 2021
• Docket: 530 MDA 2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A22012-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHARLES P. BRADFORD : : Appellant : No. 530 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-SA-0000056-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : CHARLES P. BRADFORD : : Appellant : No. 531 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-28-SA-0000057-2020

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

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 06, 2021

Charles P. Bradford appeals pro se from the March 25, 2021 judgments

of sentence imposing a total of $364 in fines, costs, and fees following a de

novo summary appeal of two violations of the Motor Vehicle Code.1 As

____________________________________________

1 This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte. J-A22012-21

Appellant failed to preserve any issues for appellate review and submitted a

wholly defective brief, we dismiss the appeals.

On January 22, 2020, Pennsylvania State Trooper Ralph A. Hockenberry

observed Appellant operating a semi-tractor trailer west-bound on the

Pennsylvania Turnpike near the entrance to the Blue Mountain Tunnel. Traffic

control devices displayed near the tunnel prohibited tractor-trailers and buses

from operating in the left lane of travel and prohibited all vehicles from

changing lanes. At approximately 7:10 a.m., Trooper Hockenberry witnessed

Appellant enter the Blue Mountain Tunnel in the left lane and then change

lanes once he traveled inside. Trooper Hockenberry initiated a traffic stop and

cited Appellant for violating 23 Pa.C.S. § 3309(3) and (4), two subsections of

the Motor Vehicle Code that relate to “[l]anes limited to specific use” and

“[p]rohibitions against changing lanes,” respectively. Appellant initially was

convicted at the municipal court level, and following a de novo summary

appeal on March 25, 2021, the trial court found Appellant guilty of both

offenses.

These timely appeals followed. On May 3, 2021, the trial court entered

orders pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellant to file and serve

concise statements of errors complained of on appeal in the two cases within

twenty-one days. Consistent with Pa.R.CrimP.114(c), the respective dockets

confirm that the orders were served on Appellant via first class mail on May

3, 2021. Nevertheless, Appellant failed to comply with Rule 1925(b).

-2- J-A22012-21

Appellant’s brief raises the following issues:

1. Does the 14th and the 9th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States apply to traffic stops of citizens[?]

1a. If so do they apply to the whole stop or just part of the stop.

2. In the courts is a lie a lie or are there degrees of lies acceptable to the courts.

2a. Can a police officer or State Trooper hide a lie by how one writes a citation.

3. In past decisions the courts has ruled on the 14th Amendment separate but equal clause. Does not a violation that is written into law as a title 75 but given as a Dot violation violate the courts separate but equal clause of the14th Amendment.

Appellant’s brief at unnumbered 2-3.

We review a summary conviction following a de novo appeal for trial

court error and to determine “whether the findings of fact are supported by

competent evidence.” Commonwealth v. Peralta, 173 A.3d 813, 815

(Pa.Super. 2017)). Fundamentally, “[t]he adjudication of the trial court will

not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Id.

Instantly, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal due to Appellant’s

failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and his submission of a wholly deficient

brief. First, Appellant’s failure to comply with the order directing him to

comply with Rule 1925(b) warrants finding all of his issues waived pursuant

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not

raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are

waived.”). While Rule 1925(c)(3) allows an appellate court to remand the

-3- J-A22012-21

matter for the appointment of new counsel and preparation of a concise

statement in criminal cases where counsel has provided per se ineffective

assistance by failing to comply with Rule 1925, “pro se appellants are excluded

from this exception to the waiver doctrine[.]” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Note:

Subparagraph (c)(3) (emphasis added). Thus, as Appellant failed to comply

with the trial court’s directive pursuant to Rule 1925, the issues he raises on

appeal are waived.

Furthermore, we observe that Appellant’s brief is in violation of

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review);

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5) (requiring statement of the case); and Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument). In addition, the brief is

devoid of citations to the certified record and it lacks meaningful citation to

legal authority as are required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b), respectively.

Moreover, the argument section of the brief is only marginally intelligible

and it does not attempt to set forth a basis for relief beyond the repeated

assertions that Trooper Hockenberry lied about aspects of the traffic stop and

a hollow argument that the enforcement of the pertinent sections of the Motor

Vehicle Code violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. See

Appellant’s brief at unnumbered 12-14. Tellingly, while we can presume that

Appellant challenges the propriety of the summary convictions, he neglects to

state the precise relief sought as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(9). “This

-4- J-A22012-21

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

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

In addition, Appellant did not attempt to reign in his rambling allegations by

attaching a copy of the trial court’s opinion to his brief as required by Pa.R.A.P.

2111(b).

Finally, we observe that Appellant’s pro se status does not excuse these

deficiencies. As we previously stated, “although this Court is willing to

construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys

no special benefit.” Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804

(Pa.Super. 2017). “[A] pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules

set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v.

Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Appellant’s complete disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure have

left this Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa.Super. 1982) (declining

to address merits of appeal because the brief was “so defective as to preclude

effective, appellate review”). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (“If the appellant fails to take the action required by these

rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration for the preparation

of the transcript, the appellate court may take such action as it deems

appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2101

-5- J-A22012-21

(“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and

are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be . . . dismissed.”).

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss these appeals due to Appellant’s

non-compliance with Rule 1925(b) and his submission of a wholly defective

brief.

Appeals dismissed. Case stricken from argument panel.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/6/2021

-6-