Com. v. Bailey, M. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • J-S11023-22
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    MICHAEL ALLEN BAILEY                       :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 1164 WDA 2021
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 13, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
    CP-25-CR-0003243-2016
    BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                 FILED: MAY 20, 2022
    Appellant, Michael Allen Bailey, appeals pro se from the order entered
    on September 13, 2021, which dismissed his petition filed under the
    Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We dismiss
    this appeal.
    A jury found Appellant guilty of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by
    unlawful taking and, on February 8, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant
    to serve an aggregate term of three to 22 years in prison for his convictions.1
    We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on September 12, 2018; the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of
    appeal on April 10, 2019 and then denied Appellant’s application for
    reconsideration on June 5, 2019. Commonwealth v. Bailey, 
    198 A.3d 452
    ____________________________________________
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(2), 3503(a)(1)(ii), and 3921(a), respectively.
    J-S11023-22
    (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished memorandum) at 1-3, appeal denied, 
    206 A.3d 493
     (Pa. 2019); Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order, 6/5/19, at 1.
    On June 29, 2021 – or, over two years after the Pennsylvania Supreme
    Court denied Appellant’s application for reconsideration – Appellant filed a pro
    se “Petition for Modification of Sentence for RRRI,”2 in which he claimed that
    his sentence is illegal, as the trial court erroneously determined that he was
    RRRI ineligible. The lower court properly treated Appellant’s filing as a PCRA
    petition and, since this was Appellant’s first petition under the PCRA, the PCRA
    court appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the proceedings. See
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (the PCRA “provides for an action by which persons
    convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons serving illegal sentences
    may obtain collateral relief;” the PCRA is “the sole means of obtaining
    collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory
    remedies . . . including habeas corpus and coram nobis”); Commonwealth
    v. West, 
    938 A.2d 1034
    , 1043 (Pa. 2007) (“[t]he PCRA subsumes all forms
    of collateral relief, including habeas corpus, to the extent a remedy is available
    under such enactment”); Commonwealth v. Quiles, 
    166 A.3d 387
     (Pa.
    Super. 2017) (“[t]he question of whether a defendant is RRRI eligible . . .
    implicates the legality of the sentence imposed”).
    Appointed counsel later filed a no-merit letter and a request to withdraw
    as counsel, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 
    544 A.2d 927
     (Pa. 1988)
    ____________________________________________
    2   “RRRI” is an abbreviation for Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive.
    -2-
    J-S11023-22
    and Commonwealth v. Finley, 
    550 A.2d 213
     (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
    See Petition for Leave to Withdraw, 8/16/21, at 1. On August 23, 2021, the
    PCRA court granted counsel’s petition for leave to withdraw and notified
    Appellant that it intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without a hearing,
    as the petition was untimely. See PCRA Court Order, 8/23/21, at 1; PCRA
    Court’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 8/23/21, at 1; Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). The
    PCRA court finally dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition on September 13, 2021
    and Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal.
    Our review of Appellant’s brief does not reveal a comprehensible
    argument on appeal.3 Further, since this Court is unable to discover a rational
    argument in Appellant’s brief, we must conclude that the procedural and
    substantive defects in Appellant’s brief completely preclude meaningful
    appellate review.      As such, we dismiss this appeal.    See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
    (“[b]riefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with
    the requirements of [our] rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular
    case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in
    the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal
    or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); see also Commonwealth
    v. Postie, 
    110 A.3d 1034
    , 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[a]lthough this Court
    ____________________________________________
    3 Appellant’s brief does not contain: a statement of jurisdiction (Pa.R.A.P.
    2111(a)(1)); a statement of the scope and standard of review (Pa.R.A.P.
    2111(a)(3)); a statement of the questions involved (Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4)); a
    statement of the case (Pa.R.A.P. 2117); a summary of the argument
    (Pa.R.A.P. 2118); or, a table of contents (Pa.R.A.P. 2174).
    -3-
    J-S11023-22
    is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
    generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se
    litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania
    Rules of the Court”).
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 05/20/2022
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1164 WDA 2021

Judges: Olson, J.

Filed Date: 5/20/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/20/2022