Com. v. Williams, K.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 17, 2023
• Docket: 782 WDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S05022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KAYLA WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 782 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0000345-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: APRIL 17, 2023

Kayla Williams appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence, entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following her summary

conviction of one count of disorderly conduct.1 On appeal, Williams contests

the imposition of $100.00 in fines and costs associated with her conviction.

Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.

Briefly, Williams’ summary conviction stems from a series of noise

complaints that occurred on December 11, 2021, at 412 Lincoln Avenue,

Apartment 3. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., Officer Lawrence Gump, Carnegie Police

Department officer, responded to a noise complaint, but was unable to contact

Williams after knocking on her apartment door. Later, at approximately 3:14

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a). J-S05022-23

a.m., Officer Gump received a second dispatch call for loud music coming from

the same apartment. Upon arrival, Officer Gump could hear loud music

coming from Williams’ apartment. Officer Gump knocked on Williams’ door

but received no response. Because Officer Gump was unable to make contact

with Williams during this second attempt, he issued Williams a citation for

disorderly conduct.2

On February 17, 2022, Williams was found guilty by a magistrate judge

of disorderly conduct. Williams filed a timely summary appeal to the trial

court, and, on June 1, 2022, she was convicted of the summary offense of

disorderly conduct, fined $100, and ordered to pay the costs of prosecution.

This timely pro se appeal follows. The trial court entered an order pursuant

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Williams to file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days.

Williams failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

Preliminarily, we note that “pro se litigant[s] must comply with the

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Instantly, we are constrained to dismiss Williams’ appeal due to her failure to

2 When asked how he knew Ms. Williams was inside of the apartment, Officer Gump testified that, during the hearing before the magistrate, Williams testified that she was in her apartment but did not want to answer because she is afraid of the police. Williams also testified at her trial de novo that she was home and playing music when Officer Gump arrived at her apartment. See N.T. Trial, 6/1/22, at 22.

-2- J-S05022-23

comply with Rule 1925(b). Williams’ failure to file a 1925(b) order warrants

finding all her issues waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not

included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions

of this paragraph are waived.”).3 Thus, the issues Williams raises on appeal

are waived.

Even if we had not deemed Williams’ issues waived on appeal, we would

dismiss her appeal for a woefully deficient pro se brief that materially fails to

conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Specifically, Williams’ brief entirely omits

or does not adequately include the following: a statement of jurisdiction,

reference to the order or determination in question, statements of the scope

and standard of review, statement of the questions involved, a statement of

the case, a summary of the argument, and argument. See Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(3), 2114, 2115(a), 2116(a), 2117(a), 2118, 2119(a)-(f). Her brief

contains no citations to the certified record or to legal authority, as are

required by 2119(c) and (b), respectively. Instead, Williams’ brief is a half-

page in length and written in numbered paragraphs. Williams’ disregard for

3 While rule 1925(c)(3) allows an appellate court to remand the matter for the appointment of new counsel and preparation of a concise statement in criminal cases where counsel has provided per se ineffective assistance by failing to comply with Rule 1925, “pro se appellants are excluded from this exception to the waiver doctrine.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925 Note: Subparagraph (c)(3) (“This subparagraph allows an appellate court to remand in criminal cases only when an appellant, who is represented by counsel, has completely failed to respond to an order to file and serve a Statement or has failed to do so timely.”).

-3- J-S05022-23

the Rules of Appellate Procedure have left this Court unable to conduct

meaningful review. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101

(“[I]f the defects are in the brief [] are substantial, the appeal [] may be. . .

dismissed). See also Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.

Super. 2017) (“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally material filed

by a pro se litigant, pro se appellants enjoy no special benefit.”);

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (an

appellate court “[w]ill not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on

behalf of an appellant[;]” when defects in brief impede ability to conduct

meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find

certain issues to be waived).

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/17/2023

-4-