J-S22039-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHNNIE MICKELL : : Appellant : No. 1645 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 16, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001153-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2025
Johnnie Mickell appeals pro se from the October 16, 2024 judgment of
sentence of 30 to 60 months’ imprisonment, plus fines, imposed after a jury
found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled
substance (“DUI”),1 and the Honorable William L.J. Burke found him guilty of
the summary offense of driving on roadways laned for traffic.2 After careful
review, we affirm.3
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3302(d)(2).
2 Id. § 3309(1).
3 The Commonwealth did not file a brief in this matter. J-S22039-25
The relevant facts of this case were summarized at length by the trial
court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and need not be reiterated in full here.
See trial court opinion, 1/24/25 at 2-7. In sum, Appellant’s convictions
stemmed from a single-vehicle automobile accident that occurred on June 1,
2022 in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, whereby Appellant’s vehicle careened
off the roadway into a ditch and hit a tree. Notes of testimony, 9/9/24 at 39-
40. Testimony at trial established that Appellant acknowledged to the
responding Pennsylvania State Trooper that he was under the influence of
Zoloft, Seroquel, and Trazadone at the time of the accident. Id. at 48.
Appellant was subsequently transported to Lehigh Valley Hospital East where
his blood tested positive for additional controlled substances, including
Clonazepam and Alprazolam. Id. at 129-130.
Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion indicating his desire to proceed
pro se. On June 19, 2024, the trial court conducted a Grazier4 hearing, at
the conclusion of which the court determined that Appellant knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.5 Notes of testimony,
6/19/24 at 15. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on September 9, 2024,
4 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
5 Karen Domalakes, Esq. served as Appellant’s standby counsel during the June 19, 2024 hearing.
-2- J-S22039-25
where he was subsequently found guilty of one count of DUI. 6 Notes of
testimony, 9/9/24 at 182. The trial court, in turn, found Appellant guilty of
the summary offense of driving on roadways laned for traffic. Id. at 188. As
noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 30 to 60 months’
imprisonment, plus fines, on October 16, 2024.7
On November 6, 2024, pro se Appellant prematurely filed a notice of
appeal from the October 16, 2024 judgment of sentence. The record reflects
that Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on October 23, 2024, which
was subsequently denied on January 24, 2025. We note that the interlocutory
appeal as filed appears to have been perfected by the intervening January 24,
2025 order denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.A.P.
905(a)(5) (a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination
but before entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such
entry and on the day thereof).8
6Andrea Thompson, Esq. served as Appellant’s standby counsel during the September 9, 2024 jury trial.
7 The record reflects that Appellant was considerably belligerent during the course of his sentencing hearing, challenging both Judge Burke and court personnel to a fist fight; referring to his standby counsel as “a dumba** b**ch”; and calling the trial judge “a f**king Klan member,” “punk a** racist motherf**ker,” and “racist pu**[y],” as well as warning Judge Burke that he was “going to pay [him] a visit.” See notes of testimony, 10/16/24 at 12-19.
8 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3- J-S22039-25
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 pro se brief falls considerably
below the standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Preliminarily, we observe that Appellant’s brief does not contain a separate
summary of argument section, argument section, nor a short conclusion
stating the precise relief sought. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6), (8), and (9). On
the contrary, the bulk of Appellant’s brief is comprised of a 16-page
“Statement of Case” and “Statement of the Score (sic) and Standard of
Review” that fails to include any meaningful discussion and analysis of
relevant legal authority, in direct violation of Rule 2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a) (stating that the argument shall include “such discussion and citation
of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Appellant’s brief is also largely
-4- J-S22039-25
devoid of the pertinent citations to the record in violation of Rules 2119(b)
and (c), and his “Statement of the Case” is interwoven with multiple
allegations that are not relevant to the factual or procedural history of this
case. See Appellant’s brief at 2-17.
Most significantly, Appellant has also failed to include a separate
“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 separate statement of the questions
involved is particularly troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues
this Court is being asked to review. See e.g., Smathers v. Smathers, 670
A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996).
Appellant’s brief is confusing and presents vague, largely conclusory
allegations of error as to why the criminal complaint in this matter should have
been dismissed. As best we can discern from his woefully deficient brief,
Appellant contends that he was subject to a “false arrest” because the trial
court improperly accepted a defective criminal complaint and affidavit of
probable cause on July 2, 2022, and Appellant did not commit any offenses
on that date. Appellant’s brief at 4, 13-17.
Given the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we could quash his
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S22039-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHNNIE MICKELL : : Appellant : No. 1645 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 16, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001153-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2025
Johnnie Mickell appeals pro se from the October 16, 2024 judgment of
sentence of 30 to 60 months’ imprisonment, plus fines, imposed after a jury
found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled
substance (“DUI”),1 and the Honorable William L.J. Burke found him guilty of
the summary offense of driving on roadways laned for traffic.2 After careful
review, we affirm.3
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3302(d)(2).
2 Id. § 3309(1).
3 The Commonwealth did not file a brief in this matter. J-S22039-25
The relevant facts of this case were summarized at length by the trial
court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and need not be reiterated in full here.
See trial court opinion, 1/24/25 at 2-7. In sum, Appellant’s convictions
stemmed from a single-vehicle automobile accident that occurred on June 1,
2022 in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, whereby Appellant’s vehicle careened
off the roadway into a ditch and hit a tree. Notes of testimony, 9/9/24 at 39-
40. Testimony at trial established that Appellant acknowledged to the
responding Pennsylvania State Trooper that he was under the influence of
Zoloft, Seroquel, and Trazadone at the time of the accident. Id. at 48.
Appellant was subsequently transported to Lehigh Valley Hospital East where
his blood tested positive for additional controlled substances, including
Clonazepam and Alprazolam. Id. at 129-130.
Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion indicating his desire to proceed
pro se. On June 19, 2024, the trial court conducted a Grazier4 hearing, at
the conclusion of which the court determined that Appellant knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.5 Notes of testimony,
6/19/24 at 15. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on September 9, 2024,
4 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
5 Karen Domalakes, Esq. served as Appellant’s standby counsel during the June 19, 2024 hearing.
-2- J-S22039-25
where he was subsequently found guilty of one count of DUI. 6 Notes of
testimony, 9/9/24 at 182. The trial court, in turn, found Appellant guilty of
the summary offense of driving on roadways laned for traffic. Id. at 188. As
noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 30 to 60 months’
imprisonment, plus fines, on October 16, 2024.7
On November 6, 2024, pro se Appellant prematurely filed a notice of
appeal from the October 16, 2024 judgment of sentence. The record reflects
that Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on October 23, 2024, which
was subsequently denied on January 24, 2025. We note that the interlocutory
appeal as filed appears to have been perfected by the intervening January 24,
2025 order denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion. See Pa.R.A.P.
905(a)(5) (a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination
but before entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such
entry and on the day thereof).8
6Andrea Thompson, Esq. served as Appellant’s standby counsel during the September 9, 2024 jury trial.
7 The record reflects that Appellant was considerably belligerent during the course of his sentencing hearing, challenging both Judge Burke and court personnel to a fist fight; referring to his standby counsel as “a dumba** b**ch”; and calling the trial judge “a f**king Klan member,” “punk a** racist motherf**ker,” and “racist pu**[y],” as well as warning Judge Burke that he was “going to pay [him] a visit.” See notes of testimony, 10/16/24 at 12-19.
8 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3- J-S22039-25
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 pro se brief falls considerably
below the standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Preliminarily, we observe that Appellant’s brief does not contain a separate
summary of argument section, argument section, nor a short conclusion
stating the precise relief sought. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6), (8), and (9). On
the contrary, the bulk of Appellant’s brief is comprised of a 16-page
“Statement of Case” and “Statement of the Score (sic) and Standard of
Review” that fails to include any meaningful discussion and analysis of
relevant legal authority, in direct violation of Rule 2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a) (stating that the argument shall include “such discussion and citation
of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Appellant’s brief is also largely
-4- J-S22039-25
devoid of the pertinent citations to the record in violation of Rules 2119(b)
and (c), and his “Statement of the Case” is interwoven with multiple
allegations that are not relevant to the factual or procedural history of this
case. See Appellant’s brief at 2-17.
Most significantly, Appellant has also failed to include a separate
“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 separate statement of the questions
involved is particularly troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues
this Court is being asked to review. See e.g., Smathers v. Smathers, 670
A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996).
Appellant’s brief is confusing and presents vague, largely conclusory
allegations of error as to why the criminal complaint in this matter should have
been dismissed. As best we can discern from his woefully deficient brief,
Appellant contends that he was subject to a “false arrest” because the trial
court improperly accepted a defective criminal complaint and affidavit of
probable cause on July 2, 2022, and Appellant did not commit any offenses
on that date. Appellant’s brief at 4, 13-17.
Given the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we could quash his
appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Lyons,
-5- J-S22039-25
833 A.2d 245, 252. However, in light of the fact that Appellant’s arguments
were not sufficiently developed in his brief, we elect to find his claims waived.
See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 277 A.3d 577, 591 (Pa.Super. 2022)
(stating, “where 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.”) (citation
omitted); Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504, 513–514 (Pa.Super.
2016) (stating, “arguments which are not appropriately developed are
waived.”) (citation omitted).
In reaching this decision, we note that we will not advocate or act as
counsel for an appellant who has not substantially complied with our rules.
Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78, 93 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation
omitted). On the contrary, Appellant’s status as a pro se litigant does not
absolve him from responsibility for compliance with the rules. “Any person
choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must . . . assume that his
lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Commonwealth v.
Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s October 16, 2024 judgment of
sentence.
Judgement of sentence affirmed.
-6- J-S22039-25
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 08/15/2025
-7-