Com. v. Oleksa, N. ( 2014 )

J-S01038-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
NICOLE K. OLEKSA
Appellant No. 1212 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 25, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0000925-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
Appellant, Nicole K. Oleksa, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following
her summary conviction for driving while operating privilege is suspended or
revoked (DUI related), per 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1). On February 5,
2014, police issued Appellant a citation for driving with a suspended license
(DUI related). A magistrate convicted Appellant of the offense on April 14,
2014, and sentenced her to 60 days’ imprisonment, plus a $500.00 fine. On
May 1, 2014, Appellant timely filed a summary appeal for a trial de novo.
On June 25, 2014, Appellant failed to appear for trial as scheduled.
Consequently, the court entered judgment on the verdict and dismissed the
appeal per Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D) (stating if defendant fails to appear, court
may dismiss appeal and enter judgment on verdict of issuing authority).
J-S01038-15
Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 25, 2014. No Rule
1925(b) statement was ordered or filed. Initially, we recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. 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.
Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special
benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person
choosing to represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must,
to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise
and legal training will be [her] undoing.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(internal citations omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing
specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal).
Instantly, Appellant’s “brief” is a one-page document that is woefully
inadequate. Significantly, Appellant’s statement of questions presented
merely states: “[Appellant] missed the court hearing but the lawyer was
there. The lawyer tried to get [hold] of [Appellant] but could not. The court
waited till last minute, but [Appellant] did not show.” (Appellant’s Brief at
1). Appellant’s statement of questions presented fails to comply with the
rules of appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (explaining statement
of questions involved must state concisely issues to be resolved);
Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa.Super. 1993) (stating
noncompliance with Rule 2116 is particularly grievous because statement of
questions involved defines specific issues for review). Essentially, Appellant
-2-
J-S01038-15
insists the officer who issued the citation told her that he would drop the
charge to driving with a suspended license (non-DUI related).
Notwithstanding Appellant’s failure to appear at the trial de novo, she asks
this Court to vacate and remand for resentencing on the lesser crime (of
which Appellant was not convicted) because her failure to appear was
“accidental.”1 Appellant provides no cogent legal arguments, evidence, or
authority to support her claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument
shall be divided into as many sections as there are questions presented,
followed by discussion with citation to relevant legal authority). These
substantial defects preclude meaningful review, warranting suppression of
Appellant’s brief and dismissal of the appeal. See Adams, supra; Pa.R.A.P.
2101. Accordingly, we suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss her appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/2014
____________________________________________
1
Appellant does not claim lack of notice. She says she was at the hospital
with her fiancé. The record shows counsel called Appellant seven times on
the day of trial.
-3-