Com. v. Droddy, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 1442 WDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S29013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DANIEL RAY DRODDY : : Appellant : No. 1442 WDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-16-CR-0000416-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: APRIL 7, 2025

Appellant, Daniel Ray Droddy, appeals from the October 25, 2023 order

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County dismissing his first

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.

§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm.

We glean the relevant procedural history from the PCRA court opinion

and the certified record. On May 29, 2020, Appellant entered an open guilty

plea to one count of Rape of a Child Less than 13 Years of Age. Per the terms

of the plea, the only agreement as to the sentence was that it would not

exceed the standard range of the sentencing guidelines—72 to 240 months of

incarceration. Relevantly, during the recitation of facts at the plea hearing,

the Commonwealth referred to the victim as being 12 years old at the time of

the crime, and, when asked by the court if the recitation of facts was accurate,

Appellant agreed that they were. N.T. Plea Hr’g, 5/29/20, at 11. The court J-S29013-24

then asked why he was pleading guilty, and he answered, “[b]ecause I am

guilty.” Id. at 12.

After the hearing, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The

court held a hearing on the motion on October 5, 2020, and denied relief. On

December 2, 2020, the court sentenced Appellant to 20 to 40 years of

incarceration, which is both the high end of the standard range, and the

statutory maximum.1 The court explained that it imposed this sentence to,

inter alia, “allow time for the child victim to grow and mature without

interference from [Appellant].” PCRA Ct. Op., 1/6/25, at 4 (unpaginated).

After this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence,2 Appellant filed his

first pro se PCRA petition on December 29, 2022. The court appointed John

Thomas, Esq., as PCRA counsel. On June 26, 2023, Attorney Thomas filed a

Turner/Finley3 no-merit letter and a petition to withdraw as counsel.

On June 28, 2023, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 Notice of Intent to

Dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing and granted Attorney Thomas’

petition to withdraw. Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, 6/28/23, at 1. On July 23,

2023, Appellant responded to the Rule 907 notice. On October 23, 2023, the

court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition. ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(e).

2 Commonwealth v. Droddy, 2021 WL 6098444 (Pa. Super. Dec. 23, 2021)

(non-precedential) (affirming court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea).

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).

-2- J-S29013-24

Appellant pro se appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Statement.4 The PCRA court initially issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion adopting

Attorney Thomas’ Turner/Finley letter. Following this Court’s remand, the

court issued a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing the claims

Appellant raised in the Statement of Questions Presented in his brief.

Appellant raises the following claims for our review:

1. The court erred in sentencing Appellant in re. [sic] to the terms of the [p]lea.

2. The court erred in not advising [Appellant] that the terms of the plea would not be followed, and by not affording [Appellant] the opportunity to consult with counsel who informed him that he was plea[d]ing to a max [sic] term of 4 [to] 8 years, and by not allowing him to withdraw the plea.

3. The court erred in using a 2020 sentence grid for a crime that occurred in 2018.

4. The court further erred in accepting a fatally defective information in charging filed by the Commonwealth re. [sic] alleging the age of the victim was 12, when in fact, the age of the victim was 13, resulting in a significant increase in the penalty phase which should [have] been a minimum of 48 months with no prior record score.

5. Defense Counsel was ineffective for failure to raise, object, [and] argue the above issues on the record, resulting in plain error-reversible error.

6. Fundamental Fairness Doctrine.

Appellant’s Br. at 5.

We review an order denying a PCRA petition to determine whether the

PCRA court’s decision is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal ____________________________________________

4 Appellant raised 5 issues in his Rule 1925(b) Statement. Rule 1925(b) Statement, 12/21/23, at 1-2.

-3- J-S29013-24

error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). “This Court

grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are supported

by the record.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 167 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super.

2017). “We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal

conclusions.” Id.

Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we observe that

appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the briefing

requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also id. at 2114–2119 (addressing specific requirements

of each subsection of brief on appeal). “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present

arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must

support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and

with citations to legal authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766,

771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a)-(c); remaining citations

omitted). Additionally, the Argument section of the brief “shall be divided into

as many parts as there are questions to be argued[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,

an appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to follow the

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739,

766 (Pa. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498

(Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that pro se litigant must “assume that his lack of

expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”). “We shall not develop an

argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to

-4- J-S29013-24

support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super.

2018). When an appellant fails to develop an argument sufficiently to permit

meaningful review, we may dismiss the appeal or find that issue waived.

Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771; Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing

defects may result in dismissal of appeal); see also Commonwealth v.

B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding issue waived where

the appellant failed to cite any pertinent authority to support his argument).

Here, Appellant’s argument section is substantially underdeveloped and,

thus, precludes meaningful appellate review. First, he has failed to address

each issue raised under a separate heading as required by Rule 2119(a) and,

instead, combines all of his arguments into one section, which consists of only

two pages. More importantly, Appellant has failed to put forth coherent

arguments, supported by citations to relevant legal authority, to support his

claims. It is not the role of this Court to develop an appellant’s legal

arguments. Milby, 189 A.3d at 1079. Appellant’s violations of the Rules of

Appellate Procedure preclude this Court’s meaningful review, and, thus, we

are constrained to find his claims waived. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal

of his PCRA petition.

Order affirmed.

-5- J-S29013-24

DATE: 4/7/2025

-6-