Com. v. Rohland, W. ( 2015 )

J-S04023-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM J. ROHLAND,
Appellant No. 375 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered December 17, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-40-CR-0003799-2006
BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2015
William J. Rohland (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order denying
his petition for writ of mandamus. We affirm.
The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: On
September 27, 2007, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of first-degree
murder. On October 2, 2007, because the jury was unable to reach a
unanimous verdict, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two consecutive
terms of life imprisonment. Following the appointment of new counsel,
Appellant filed an appeal to this Court. In an unpublished memorandum
filed on May 26, 2009, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Commonwealth v. Rohland, 976 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 2009). On April
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04023-15
27, 2010, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of
appeal. Commonwealth v. Rohland, 993 A.2d 900 (Pa. 2010).
Appellant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court. Instead, he unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus
relief with our Supreme Court, as well as multiple times with the federal
district court. See Rohland v. Wenerowicz, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2645 (Pa.
Nov. 1, 2011); Rohland v. Wenerowicz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157013(M.D. Pa., May 16, 2012); Rohland v. Wenerowicz, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
120245 (M.D. Pa., Mar, 29, 2013).
On April 26, 2013, Appellant filed the pro se petition for writ of
mandamus at issue in this appeal. The trial court held a video conference
regarding Appellant’s filing on November 12, 2013. By order dated
December 17, 2013, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s petition. This
timely appeal follows.
Within its brief, the Commonwealth urges this Court to affirm the trial
court’s order denying mandamus relief based on the substantial defects in
Appellant’s pro se brief. See Commonwealth Brief, at 5-6.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the following
guidelines regarding the content of an appellant’s brief:
Rule 2111. Brief of Appellant
(a) General rule.—The brief of the appellant, except
as otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist
of the following matters, separately and distinctly
entitled and in the following order.
-2-
J-S04023-15
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and
the standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal
to challenge the discretionary aspects of a
sentence, if applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief
sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in (b)
and (c) of this rule.
(11) In Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
errors complained of on appeal, filed with the
trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an
averment that no order requiring a statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
(b) Opinions below.—There shall be appended to the
brief a copy of any opinions delivered by any court
or other government unit below relating to the
order or other determination under review, if
pertinent to the questions involved. If an opinion
has been reported, that fact and the appropriate
citation shall also be set forth.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (a), (b).
We note that, “[w]hile this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by pro se litigants, . . . Appellant is not entitled to any
-3-
J-S04023-15
particular advantage because [he] lacks legal understanding.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996).
Here, our review of Appellant’s lengthy pro se brief reveals a failure to
conform to almost all of the Pa.R.A.P. 2111 briefing requirements. These
inadequacies have hampered effective appellate review, such that we
dismiss Appellant’s appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (if the defects are in
the brief … of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal … may be
quashed or dismissed). See Rivera, 685 A.2d at 1103 (explaining that
when issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, and the briefs
are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, this Court will
not consider their merits); see also Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d
870 (Pa. Super, 2014).
Appeal dismissed. Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2015
-4-