Com. v. Kilgus, B.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 567 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S01040-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : BRENT JAMES KILGUS : : Appellant : No. 567 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 26, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-47-CR-0000135-2018

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JANUARY 24, 2025

Brent James Kilgus appeals pro se from the March 26, 2024 order

dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. For the reasons set forth below, we

quash this appeal.1

A detailed recitation of the facts is not relevant to our disposition and

need not be reiterated here. The relevant procedural history of this case, as

gleaned from the certified record, is as follows: On February 12, 2020, a jury

found Appellant guilty of rape of a child, statutory sexual assault, aggravated

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The Commonwealth has indicated that it will not be filing a brief in this matter, noting that Appellant’s purported brief “lacks sufficient information to provide a meaningful response.” Commonwealth’s Letter, 11/25/24 at ¶ 2. J-S01040-25

indecent assault of a child, corruption of minors, and indecent assault of a

child.2 These convictions stemmed from Appellant’s repeated sexual assault

of a nine-year old family member over the course of a year. On July 8, 2020,

Appellant was sentenced to 120 to 240 months’ imprisonment, plus three

years’ probation, for rape of a child; 60 to 120 months’ imprisonment for

aggravated indecent assault; 12 to 24 months’ imprisonment for corruption of

minors; and 9 to 18 months’ imprisonment for indecent assault of a child. The

conviction for statutory sexual assault merged with rape of child for sentencing

purposes. On October 22, 2021, a panel of this Court affirmed Appellant’s

judgment of sentence, and Appellant did not seek an allowance of appeal with

our Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Kilgus, 266 A.3d 647

(Pa.Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum).

On November 3, 2022, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition and

Hugh C. Taylor, III, Esq. (hereinafter, “PCRA counsel”) was appointed to

represent him. PCRA counsel ultimately filed a petition to withdraw and “no-

merit” letter in accordance with Turner/Finley,3 which was granted on

January 26, 2024. Thereafter, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice

of its intention to dismiss his petition without an evidentiary hearing, pursuant

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3122.1(b), 3125(a)(7), 6301(a)(1)(ii), and 3126(a)(7), respectively.

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988) (en banc).

-2- J-S01040-25

to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). On March 26, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice

of appeal on April 17, 2024.4 On September 25, 2024, a panel of this Court

dismissed Appellant’s appeal for failure to file a brief. On October 18, 2024,

this Court filed a per curiam order granting pro se Appellant’s request to

reinstate his appeal.

Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition

is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller,

102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “This Court grants

great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those

findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding.”

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394, 397 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation

omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a defendant must plead and

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence

arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).

These issues must be neither previously litigated nor waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9543(a)(3).

4 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

-3- J-S01040-25

Prior to any consideration of the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must

first determine whether his brief complies with the Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure.

It is well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs

in conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of

Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will

admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an

appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania

Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245,

252 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa.

2005).

Here, our review reveals that Appellant’s brief falls well below the

standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Notably, Appellant’s

“brief” is comprised of a single, five-line sentence on one page. We observe

that Appellant’s brief is entirely devoid of any of the elements set forth in Rule

2111(a), including: a statement of jurisdiction; a section specifying the order

or determination sought to be reviewed; a statement of the scope and

standard of review; a statement of the case; a summary of argument section;

nor a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. See Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), and (9). Appellant’s brief also fails to include

an “Argument” section “divided into as many parts as there are questions to

be argued.” See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) and 2119(a).

-4- J-S01040-25

Most significantly, Appellant has failed to include a “Statement of

Questions Involved” in his brief in direct violation of Rule 2116(a), which

provides that the statement of the questions involved must state the issues

“with sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to readily identify

the issues to be resolved….” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) note (emphasis added).

Appellant’s failure to include a statement of the questions involved is

particularly troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues this Court

is being asked to review. See Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014,

1015-1016 (Pa.Super. 1993).

Accordingly, we are compelled to quash this appeal due to the

substantial defects in Appellant’s one-page brief, which impede our ability to

conduct meaningful appellate review.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/24/2025

-5-