Com. v. Joachin, D. ( 2017 )

J-S77034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
DOMINIQUE JOACHIN :
: No. 863 MDA 2017
Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 17, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-SA-0000088-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2017
Appellant Dominique Joachin appeals the disposition and sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County following the trial
court’s dismissal of his summary appeal on May 17, 2017. For the reasons
that follow, we quash the appeal.
On November 24, 2015, Appellant received summary traffic citations for
failing to carry and exhibit a driver’s license on demand and speeding.1 On
January 20, 2016, Appellant was adjudged guilty of those offenses in absentia
by a Magisterial District Judge when he failed to appear for his summary trial.
On March 3, 2016, Appellant untimely filed his pro se “Notice of Appeal from
Summary Criminal Conviction” in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County.
____________________________________________
175 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1511(a), 3362(a).
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77034-17
In its Order entered on April 18, 2016, the trial court scheduled a de
novo Summary Appeal Hearing for June 9, 2016. That hearing was later
continued to September 14, 2016, although Appellant again failed to appear.
As a result, the trial court dismissed his appeal and entered a guilty verdict.
In its Order entered on April 18, 2017, the trial court determined
Appellant had not received proper notice of his summary appeal hearing date,
vacated the Order of September 14, 2016, dismissing the same, and relisted
the matter for a trial de novo May 19, 2017. That Summary Appeal Hearing
was held on May 17, 2017, at which time Appellant was present.
Officer Brian Strand appeared at the hearing with copies of the original
traffic citations and indicated he had handed Appellant those citations on
November 24, 2015. N.T. Hearing, 5/17/17, at 3, 10. Notwithstanding,
Appellant maintained he never received copies of the citations or notice of any
of the previously scheduled hearings. Id. at 4-8. Appellant further argued
he was suffering from a concussion on the night in question and had been out
of the country at the time of his previous hearings due to his work as a
minister. Id. at 3-5. Appellant also challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction
to hear the matter. Id. at 7-8. Ultimately, the trial court granted the
Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the appeal and notified Appellant of his
appellate rights. Id. at 10.
On May 26, 2017, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 6,
2017, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of matters
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In its Rule 1925(a)
-2-
J-S77034-17
Opinion, the trial court indicated Appellant had failed to comply with its Rule
1925 Order and had not requested an extension of time in which to file the
same.2 Due to Appellant’s failure to file a concise statement, the trial court
found any issues he may have raised on appeal to be waived.
Although Appellant filed an appellate brief with this Court, he has not
presented a clear statement of the questions involved. Instead, he filed what
he titles “Points on Appeal” which reads as follows:
The trial court erred in its decision because it failed to applies [sic]
the facts to the elements of the statute(s) as clearly established
in the legislature because the decision(s) was not supported by
substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence in that
trial court.
The statute of “42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(a). Rule 302.2 is also derived
in part from Pa.R.C.P. No. 213(f) (authorizing transfer of actions
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).”.
The magisterial district court shall transfer the action at the cost
of the plaintiff to the court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction heard
de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether an error of
law has been committed and whether the findings of fact are supported by
competent evidence. Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949, 958
(Pa.Super. 2002). “The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on
____________________________________________
2 Our review of the record confirms that no concise statement was filed.
-3-
J-S77034-17
appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Parks,
768 A.2d 1168, 1171 (Pa.Super. 2001).
Before we reach the merits of the instant appeal, we first must
determine whether Appellant properly has preserved any claims for our
review. As the trial court found, Appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Failure to file a concise statement when ordered by the trial court
results in a waiver of issues on appeal. Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839
A.2d 1064, 1075 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa.
415, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998)). In order to preserve his claims for appellate
review, an appellant must comply whenever the trial court orders him to file
a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925, and
any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.
Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 427, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (2011).
In its June 6, 2016, Order the trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule
1925(b) statement within twenty-one days and specified that “[a]ny issue not
included in a timely filed and served Statement of Errors Complained of [o]n
Appeal shall be deemed waived.” Because the trial court properly ordered
Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal under
Rule 1925(b), Appellant’s failure to do so results in the automatic waiver of
his claims. See Lord; Hill, supra.
Alternatively, Appellant’s appeal must be quashed due to the substantial
defects in his appellate brief which greatly impair our ability to conduct
-4-
J-S77034-17
meaningful appellate review. Appellate briefs must conform in all material
respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the
appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833
A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa.Super. 2003). Although this Court is willing to construe
liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special
benefit upon the appellant. Id.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines
regarding the required content of an appellate brief as follows:
Rule 2111. Brief of the 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:
(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 Subdivisions (b) and
(c) of this rule.
(11) In the 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.
-5-
J-S77034-17
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). More specifically, Rule 2116 entitled “Statement of
Questions Involved” states:
(a) General rule. The statement of the questions involved
must state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in
the terms and circumstances of the case but without
unnecessary detail. The statement will be deemed to include
every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. No
question will be considered unless it is stated in the
statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby. ...
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (emphasis added). The omission of a statement of the
questions involved is particularly grievous because it defines the specific
issues this Court is asked to review. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d
1014, 1016 (Pa.Super. 1993).
Appellant's brief falls well below the standard delineated in the Rules of
Appellate Procedure. His discourse is rambling and often indecipherable. To
the extent the brief may contain an argument, it lacks the necessary citations
to the record or to relevant legal authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a);
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 940 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2008) (stating it is an appellant’s duty to present
arguments sufficiently developed for our review and supported with references
to the record and citation to legal authorities). Most importantly, Appellant
fails to include in his brief a statement of questions involved See Pa.R.A.P.
2116(a); Maris, supra. Therefore, Appellant has waived all issues on appeal
for this reason as well. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Lyons, supra.
-6-
J-S77034-17
Accordingly, we quash this appeal for Appellant’s failure to file a timely
Rule 1925(b) statement and substantial failure to comply with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2017
-7-