Com. v. Elansari, A. ( 2016 )

J-A31012-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
AMRO AYMAN ELANSARI
Appellant No. 773 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 9, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-19-CR-0000680-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2016
After a bench trial, the court convicted Appellant, Amro Ayman
Elansari, of possession of a small amount of marijuana and imposed as the
judgment of sentence a $100.00 fine, as well as to pay the costs of
prosecution. Elansari’s arrest came as no surprise: He “intentionally lit a
joint in front of police officers knowing they would arrest him….” Appellant’s
Brief, at 1. His aim was to use his arrest and conviction to challenge the
constitutionality of 35 P.S. § 780-104(1)(iv), Marihuana. Elansari explains
that he wants to be permitted to “smoke marijuana on my balcony….” Id.,
at 9.
____________________________________________

Retired senior judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A31012-15
In this pro se appeal, Elansari claims that the inclusion of marijuana as
a Schedule I controlled substance violates his rights to due process under
the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. His brief is
a rambling diatribe on the alleged virtues of marijuana, particularly what he
claims are its medicinal effects.
Apart from the glaring problems with the brief, which we need not
catalog here, Elansari concedes that his main argument, concerning the
medicinal effects of marijuana, has already been decided by this Court in
Commonwealth v. Waddell, 61 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2012). He maintains,
however, that Waddell “can now be re-examined by and through this case.”
Appellant’s Brief, at 4. It cannot. See, e.g., State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
v. Craley, 844 A.2d 573, 575 (Pa. Super. 2004). The panel in Waddell
rejected a due process challenge, concluding, “[r]egardless of whether there
are accepted medical uses for marijuana in the United States, marijuana
remains a Schedule I substance under the Drug Act.” 61 A.3d at 207.
Elansari also spends a substantial portion of his brief explaining the
pleasure he obtains from smoking marijuana. Simply explaining that an
activity gives one pleasure and that it should be protected as a fundamental
liberty under the United States Constitution is not a developed legal
argument. Thus, we find that argument waived. See Commonwealth v.
Clayton, 816 A.2d 217, 221 (Pa. 2002) (“[U]ndeveloped claims are waived
and unreviewable on appeal.”). He also seems to suggest, in his convoluted
brief, that he has a religious right to use marijuana. Elansari does not
-2-
J-A31012-15
explain what religion he is referring to, which perhaps is not surprising as he
notes that no one “can define my religion for me.” Appellant’s Brief, at 8. We
also find this undeveloped argument waived.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2016
-3-