Com. v. Cruz, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 814 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S39035-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN ANTONIO CRUZ : : Appellant : No. 814 EDA 2025

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000702-2015

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 5, 2026

John Antonio Cruz (“Cruz”) appeals pro se from the denial of his serial

petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 Because Cruz

concedes no relief is due, his brief fails to conform to the Rules of Appellate

Procedure, and his appeal is time-barred depriving this Court of jurisdiction,

we dismiss this appeal.

In 2016, a jury convicted Cruz of a series of offenses including persons

not to possess firearms. Cruz did not appeal. He subsequently filed two PCRA

petitions, each of which the PCRA court dismissed, and this Court affirmed the

dismissal of the petitions. Cruz filed a third PCRA petition, which the PCRA

dismissed as time-barred, that is the subject of this appeal.

Cruz lists three issues for our review, all of which relate to the

constitutionality of the prohibition of possession of firearms by a person ____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S39035-25

convicted of a prior violent felony, and refer to the United States Supreme

Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v Bruen, 597

U.S. 1 (2002). See Cruz’s Brief at 1. We do not reach the merits of Cruz’s

issues because, in his one-sentence argument, Cruz concedes he is not

entitled to relief: “Appellant recognizes that Bruen was not held to apply

retroactively and therefore[] those standards alone do not apply to the

jurisdictional time bar, however argued.” See Cruz’s Brief at 2.2

Not surprisingly, given Cruz’s concession he is due no relief, his brief

fails to comply with a plethora of Rules of Appellate Procedure, most

significantly Pa.R.A.P. 2119, Argument, which requires a discussion and

citation of authorities, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b), reference to the record, see

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c), a synopsis of evidence, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(d), and a

statement of place of raising or preservation of issues, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e).

This Court may dismiss an appeal if the defects in the brief are

substantial. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing “if the defects . . . in the brief . . .

are substantial, the appeal . . . may be . . . dismissed”). For that independent

reason, Cruz is not entitled to review of a claim he concedes is meritless.

Finally, we note the PCRA court has ably explained Cruz’s claim is time-

barred depriving the court of jurisdiction. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/25.

____________________________________________

2 In similar vein, Cruz’s conclusion does not seek relief but invokes blessing

from a Higher Power on this Court. See Cruz’s Brief at 2-3.

-2- J-S39035-25

We incorporate the PCRA court’s reasoning as another, independent basis to

dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 1/5/2026

-3-