Com. v. Saez, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 30, 2023
• Docket: 1687 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S24026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RALPH ANTHONY SAEZ : : Appellant : No. 1687 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-55-CR-0000373-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 30, 2023

Ralph Anthony Saez appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence,

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County, following his

convictions by a jury for terroristic threats1 and harassment.2 The convictions

arise from a telephone conversation between Saez and Bo Trawitz, Chief

Probation Officer of Snyder County, in which Saez threatened to shoot Trawitz

if he set foot on Saez’s property. Saez was sentenced to 36 months of

probation on November 2, 2022. For the following reasons, we quash.

Saez’s pro se brief fails in all respects to comply with the Rules of

Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain the order in question, a

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1).

2 Id. at § 2709(a)(4). J-S24026-23

statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the scope and standard of review, a

statement of questions, a statement of the case, or a summary of the

argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Saez’s brief also fails to include any

citation to relevant case law or statutory authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

Saez’s status as a pro se litigant does not relieve him of his obligation

to adhere to the Rules of Appellate procedure. See In re Ullman, 995 A.2d

1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted) (“Although this Court is

willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status

confers no special benefit upon [an] appellant. To the contrary, any person

choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable

extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his

undoing.”). Moreover, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop

arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080,

1088 (Pa. Super. 2014). “[W]hen issues are not properly raised and

developed in briefs, [or] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present

specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.”

Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation

omitted).

Because Saez’s brief contains no coherent legal arguments and fails to

comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are unable to

perform appellate review. Accordingly, we quash the appeal.

Appeal quashed.

-2- J-S24026-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/30/2023

-3-