J-S36005-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AARON BRADY KESSLER : : Appellant : No. 439 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-SA-0000019-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AARON BRADY KESSLER : : Appellant : No. 440 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-SA-0000027-2023
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 6, 2025
Aaron Brady Kessler appeals from the judgments of sentence,1 imposed
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, after the trial court, in a
trial de novo, convicted him of three counts of unlawful operation of ATV on
____________________________________________
1 By order dated September 11, 2024, this Court consolidated Kessler’s appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. J-S36005-24
highway2 and two counts of failure to cover off-road lighting lamps while
operating on highway.3 After our review, we dismiss the appeal.
On May 10, 2023, Pennsylvania State Trooper Paul Beard was on
stationary patrol facing east on Route 180, Loyalsock Township, Lycoming
County. See N.T. Trial De Novo, 11/21/23, at 5-6. While stationed in the
emergency crossover, Trooper Beard observed a Polaris side-by-side all-
terrain vehicle (“ATV”) traveling eastbound on Route 180. Id. at 6. Because
it is illegal to operate an ATV on a highway in Pennsylvania, id. at 7, Trooper
Beard entered the roadway, activated his emergency light and siren, and
pulled the vehicle over. Id. at 6. After making contact with the operator,
Trooper Beard learned that the ATV was registered in Montana as a
“quadricycle,” a designation not used in Pennsylvania. Id. at 7, 15. Trooper
Beard testified that the vehicle would be defined as an ATV in Pennsylvania.
Id. at 15. Trooper Beard towed the vehicle for safety purposes. Id. at 16,
24. Per the manufacturer’s specifications, Trooper Beard determined that the
vehicle was listed as weighing over 1200 pounds. Id. at 17, 24-25.
Ultimately, Trooper Beard issued numerous citations to Kessler, including, as
relevant to this appeal, one count each under sections 7721(a) and 4303(f) of
the Motor Vehicle Code.
2 75 Pa.C.S.A § 7721(a).
3 Id. at § 4303(f)
-2- J-S36005-24
Pennsylvania State Trooper Matthew J. Baux testified that, on May 10,
2023, he was working a 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift when he received a call
that there was an ATV driving down the highway westbound in the direction
of Williamsport City. Id. at 35. After patrolling the area, Trooper Baux was
unable to locate the vehicle. Id. Later in the day, Trooper Beard “called up
that he had stopped said ATV traveling eastbound on Interstate 180 in
Loyalsock Township.” Id. Approximately one hour later, Trooper Baux
observed an ATV matching the description of the vehicle Trooper Beard had
referenced traveling eastbound on Broad Street towards the center of
Montoursville Borough. Id. Trooper Baux subsequently conducted a traffic
stop of the ATV in a CVS parking lot on Broad Street in Montoursville. Id. at
36. During the stop, Trooper Baux asked Kessler why he was driving an ATV
on the roadway again after just having been towed and advised not to drive
on the roadway. Id. Trooper Baux subsequently issued Kessler citations for,
inter alia, a violation of section 7721(a). Id. at 36-37. Finally, Trooper Baux
testified as follows:
we received guidance from our legal counsel a few years ago about people registering ATVs that are currently referred to as side-by-sides out of Montana to circumvent Pennsylvania laws believing that they could drive them on the streets of [sic] highways. Pennsylvania in Chapter 77, it’s a snow mobile and ATV section[,] defines an ATV as a motorized off-highway vehicle [that] has three or more tires, and [divides them into] Class 1 or 2. Class 1 [] has a maximum width of 50 inches and a [] maximum dry weight of 1200 [pounds], and then Class 2 [has] a width that exceeds 50 inches and a [] dry weight that exceeds 1200 [pounds].
-3- J-S36005-24
When I received this information I was working at a different county [where] ATVs were more prolific[,] so I was more versed in them coming into this, and I knew that this [] Montana registration type thing was gaining popularity in Pennsylvania. So that’s how I knew that. I had [] looked up the definition of an ATV prior to interacting with him that day.
Id. at 37-38.
Subsequent to his interactions with Troopers Beard and Baux on May
10, 2023, Kessler was stopped a third time—on June 30, 2023, the date of his
summary trial on the first tranche of charges—and Trooper Beard again cited
him for, inter alia, one violation each of sections 7721(a) and 4303(f).
On June 30, 2023, Kessler appeared before a magistrate for a summary
trial on the May 10, 2023 violations and was found guilty on all counts. Kessler
filed a notice of summary appeal of those convictions to the court of common
pleas on July 28, 2023. On August 31, 2023, Kessler appeared before the
magistrate for trial on the June 30, 2023 violations and was again convicted
on all counts. He filed a notice of summary appeal of those convictions on
September 28, 2023. The cases were consolidated for a trial de novo before
the Honorable William P. Carlucci on November 21, 2023. Following the close
of evidence, the court granted defense counsel’s request to brief the matter
in lieu of closing arguments. Both parties filed briefs and, on February 26,
2024, the court held oral argument. On February 28, 2024, Judge Carlucci
issued an opinion and order in which he found Kessler guilty of three violations
of section 7721(a) and two violations of section 4303(f). The court found
Kessler not guilty of the remaining violations.
-4- J-S36005-24
Kessler filed timely notices of appeal to this Court, followed by a court-
ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. He raises the following claims for our review:
1. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to find [Kessler] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating [sections] 7721(a) and 4303(f), specifically whether [Kessler’s] vehicle is [] an all[-]terrain vehicle [as] defined in 7[5] Pa.[C.S.A.] § 7702(2)?
2. Whether [section] 7702 (defining an all[-]terrain vehicle) is subject to the “vagueness doctrine” and deemed unconstitutionally vague?
3. Whether Pennsylvania must recognize properly licensed vehicles from other states wherein there is no reciprocal definition in Pennsylvania?
Brief of Appellant, at 6.
Prior to addressing Kessler’s claims, we must determine whether they
are waived. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) requires that
the “argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to
be argued” and include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “[W]here an appellate brief fails to
provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to
develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S36005-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AARON BRADY KESSLER : : Appellant : No. 439 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-SA-0000019-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AARON BRADY KESSLER : : Appellant : No. 440 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-SA-0000027-2023
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 6, 2025
Aaron Brady Kessler appeals from the judgments of sentence,1 imposed
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, after the trial court, in a
trial de novo, convicted him of three counts of unlawful operation of ATV on
____________________________________________
1 By order dated September 11, 2024, this Court consolidated Kessler’s appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. J-S36005-24
highway2 and two counts of failure to cover off-road lighting lamps while
operating on highway.3 After our review, we dismiss the appeal.
On May 10, 2023, Pennsylvania State Trooper Paul Beard was on
stationary patrol facing east on Route 180, Loyalsock Township, Lycoming
County. See N.T. Trial De Novo, 11/21/23, at 5-6. While stationed in the
emergency crossover, Trooper Beard observed a Polaris side-by-side all-
terrain vehicle (“ATV”) traveling eastbound on Route 180. Id. at 6. Because
it is illegal to operate an ATV on a highway in Pennsylvania, id. at 7, Trooper
Beard entered the roadway, activated his emergency light and siren, and
pulled the vehicle over. Id. at 6. After making contact with the operator,
Trooper Beard learned that the ATV was registered in Montana as a
“quadricycle,” a designation not used in Pennsylvania. Id. at 7, 15. Trooper
Beard testified that the vehicle would be defined as an ATV in Pennsylvania.
Id. at 15. Trooper Beard towed the vehicle for safety purposes. Id. at 16,
24. Per the manufacturer’s specifications, Trooper Beard determined that the
vehicle was listed as weighing over 1200 pounds. Id. at 17, 24-25.
Ultimately, Trooper Beard issued numerous citations to Kessler, including, as
relevant to this appeal, one count each under sections 7721(a) and 4303(f) of
the Motor Vehicle Code.
2 75 Pa.C.S.A § 7721(a).
3 Id. at § 4303(f)
-2- J-S36005-24
Pennsylvania State Trooper Matthew J. Baux testified that, on May 10,
2023, he was working a 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift when he received a call
that there was an ATV driving down the highway westbound in the direction
of Williamsport City. Id. at 35. After patrolling the area, Trooper Baux was
unable to locate the vehicle. Id. Later in the day, Trooper Beard “called up
that he had stopped said ATV traveling eastbound on Interstate 180 in
Loyalsock Township.” Id. Approximately one hour later, Trooper Baux
observed an ATV matching the description of the vehicle Trooper Beard had
referenced traveling eastbound on Broad Street towards the center of
Montoursville Borough. Id. Trooper Baux subsequently conducted a traffic
stop of the ATV in a CVS parking lot on Broad Street in Montoursville. Id. at
36. During the stop, Trooper Baux asked Kessler why he was driving an ATV
on the roadway again after just having been towed and advised not to drive
on the roadway. Id. Trooper Baux subsequently issued Kessler citations for,
inter alia, a violation of section 7721(a). Id. at 36-37. Finally, Trooper Baux
testified as follows:
we received guidance from our legal counsel a few years ago about people registering ATVs that are currently referred to as side-by-sides out of Montana to circumvent Pennsylvania laws believing that they could drive them on the streets of [sic] highways. Pennsylvania in Chapter 77, it’s a snow mobile and ATV section[,] defines an ATV as a motorized off-highway vehicle [that] has three or more tires, and [divides them into] Class 1 or 2. Class 1 [] has a maximum width of 50 inches and a [] maximum dry weight of 1200 [pounds], and then Class 2 [has] a width that exceeds 50 inches and a [] dry weight that exceeds 1200 [pounds].
-3- J-S36005-24
When I received this information I was working at a different county [where] ATVs were more prolific[,] so I was more versed in them coming into this, and I knew that this [] Montana registration type thing was gaining popularity in Pennsylvania. So that’s how I knew that. I had [] looked up the definition of an ATV prior to interacting with him that day.
Id. at 37-38.
Subsequent to his interactions with Troopers Beard and Baux on May
10, 2023, Kessler was stopped a third time—on June 30, 2023, the date of his
summary trial on the first tranche of charges—and Trooper Beard again cited
him for, inter alia, one violation each of sections 7721(a) and 4303(f).
On June 30, 2023, Kessler appeared before a magistrate for a summary
trial on the May 10, 2023 violations and was found guilty on all counts. Kessler
filed a notice of summary appeal of those convictions to the court of common
pleas on July 28, 2023. On August 31, 2023, Kessler appeared before the
magistrate for trial on the June 30, 2023 violations and was again convicted
on all counts. He filed a notice of summary appeal of those convictions on
September 28, 2023. The cases were consolidated for a trial de novo before
the Honorable William P. Carlucci on November 21, 2023. Following the close
of evidence, the court granted defense counsel’s request to brief the matter
in lieu of closing arguments. Both parties filed briefs and, on February 26,
2024, the court held oral argument. On February 28, 2024, Judge Carlucci
issued an opinion and order in which he found Kessler guilty of three violations
of section 7721(a) and two violations of section 4303(f). The court found
Kessler not guilty of the remaining violations.
-4- J-S36005-24
Kessler filed timely notices of appeal to this Court, followed by a court-
ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal. He raises the following claims for our review:
1. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to find [Kessler] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating [sections] 7721(a) and 4303(f), specifically whether [Kessler’s] vehicle is [] an all[-]terrain vehicle [as] defined in 7[5] Pa.[C.S.A.] § 7702(2)?
2. Whether [section] 7702 (defining an all[-]terrain vehicle) is subject to the “vagueness doctrine” and deemed unconstitutionally vague?
3. Whether Pennsylvania must recognize properly licensed vehicles from other states wherein there is no reciprocal definition in Pennsylvania?
Brief of Appellant, at 6.
Prior to addressing Kessler’s claims, we must determine whether they
are waived. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) requires that
the “argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to
be argued” and include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “[W]here an appellate brief fails to
provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to
develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim
is waived.” Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citation omitted). Further, if the defects in the brief of the appellant are
substantial, the appeal may be quashed or dismissed. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Here, with respect to his first claim regarding the sufficiency of the
evidence, Kessler provides no citation to relevant caselaw other than block
-5- J-S36005-24
quotations of sections 7702 and 7721 and a case setting forth the standard of
review of a sufficiency claim. Kessler provides no legal discussion other than
baldly asserting that Pennsylvania has no legal classification for quadricycles
and that enforcement of their use “is purely arbitrary and subjective by
[c]ounty.” Brief of Appellant, at 11.
Similarly, with regard to his third claim, invoking the full faith and credit
clause, Kessler’s two-page argument consists of: (1) a block quotation of the
full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution; (2) a citation to
Ferrelli v. Commonwealth, 783 A.2d 891 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001),4 for the
proposition that the full faith and credit clause does not require Pennsylvania
to subordinate its public policy to the laws of another state; and (3) a bald
argument that “since Pennsylvania law does not adequately define the vehicle
in question, Pennsylvania is required to accept the foreign definition.” Brief
of Appellant, at 17. Kessler provides no legal authority for this claim.
Given Kessler’s failure to develop meaningful argument with “such
discussion and citation to authorities as are deemed pertinent,” see Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a), we are constrained to find his first and third claims waived. See
Commonwealth v. Irby, 700 A.2d 463, 464 (Pa. Super. 1997)
(“[A]rguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived.”); see also
Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
4 We note that decisions rendered by the Commonwealth Court are not binding
on this Court. See Beaston v. Ebersole, 986 A.2d 876, 881 (Pa. Super. 2009)
-6- J-S36005-24
omitted) (“This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments
on behalf of an appellant.”).
With regard to Kessler’s second claim—that section 7702 is void for
vagueness—we note that Kessler did not make this argument in the trial court
and raised it for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. “It is axiomatic
that claims not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on
appeal.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122, 126 (Pa. Super. 2011).
See also Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Moreover, “[a] party cannot
rectify the failure to preserve an issue by proffering it in response to a Rule
1925(b) order.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 469
(Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Because Kessler failed to raise his claim
before the trial court, he has waived it for purposes of appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 2/6/2025
-7-