Commonwealth v. Jones

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Jones

477 A.2d 882, 329 Pa. Super. 20, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5189

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 22, 1984

Docket2176

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 477 A.2d 882 (Commonwealth v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 A.2d 882, 329 Pa. Super. 20, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5189 (Pa. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act. 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Since reenacted at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq.). We must quash the appeal.

Rule 2101, Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that briefs shall conform with the various appellate rules and if the briefs are substantially defective the reviewing court may quash the appeal. The courts of this Commonwealth have on numerous occasions invoked the punitive measures of Rule 2101. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 309 Pa.Superior Ct. 506, 455 A.2d 725 (1983); A.M. Skier Agency v. Pocono Futures, Inc., 308 Pa.Superior Ct. 481, 454 A.2d 637 (1982); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 306 *22 Pa.Superior Ct. 1, 451 A.2d 1360 (1982); Commonwealth v. Sanford, 299 Pa.Superior Ct. 64, 445 A.2d 149 (1982); Wicker v. Civil Service Com’n, 74 Pa.Cmwlth. 548, 460 A.2d 407 (1983).

The brief filed on appellant’s behalf is one of the most inadequate attempts at appellate advocacy that the members of this panel have ever had the displeasure of attempting to review. Counsel has garbled the statement of questions involved, and more importantly his “Argument” is void of any substance in law or fact. His four sentence argument, contains no citations, no references to the record, and does not even address the merits of the appeal beyond a bald allegation of ineffectiveness of counsel. We conclude that appellant’s brief either ignores or seriously undermines the following Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure:

2115 (Order or Other Determination in Question);

2116 (Statement of Questions Involved);

2118 (Summary of Argument);

2119(a) (Argument — General rule);

2119(b) (Citations of Authorities);

2119(c) (Reference to record);

2119(d) (Synopsis of evidence); and

2174(b) (Tables of citations).

Appeal quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act. 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Since reenacted at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541 et seq.). We must quash the appeal.

Rule 2101, Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that briefs shall conform with the various appellate rules and if the briefs are substantially defective the reviewing court may quash the appeal. The courts of this Commonwealth have on numerous occasions invoked the punitive measures of Rule 2101. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 309 Pa.Superior Ct. 506, 455 A.2d 725 (1983); A.M. Skier Agency v. Pocono Futures, Inc., 308 Pa.Superior Ct. 481, 454 A.2d 637 (1982); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 306 *22 Pa.Superior Ct. 1, 451 A.2d 1360 (1982); Commonwealth v. Sanford, 299 Pa.Superior Ct. 64, 445 A.2d 149 (1982); Wicker v. Civil Service Com’n, 74 Pa.Cmwlth. 548, 460 A.2d 407 (1983).

The brief filed on appellant’s behalf is one of the most inadequate attempts at appellate advocacy that the members of this panel have ever had the displeasure of attempting to review. Counsel has garbled the statement of questions involved, and more importantly his “Argument” is void of any substance in law or fact. His four sentence argument, contains no citations, no references to the record, and does not even address the merits of the appeal beyond a bald allegation of ineffectiveness of counsel. We conclude that appellant’s brief either ignores or seriously undermines the following Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure:

2115 (Order or Other Determination in Question);

2116 (Statement of Questions Involved);

2118 (Summary of Argument);

2119(a) (Argument — General rule);

2119(b) (Citations of Authorities);

2119(c) (Reference to record);

2119(d) (Synopsis of evidence); and

2174(b) (Tables of citations).

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 A.2d 882, 329 Pa. Super. 20, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-jones-pa-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack