Com. v. Sterner, S. ( 2016 )

J-S64011-16
NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEVEN DAVID STERNER
Appellant No. 595 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 8, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 09 -CR- 0005652 -2010; CP-09-CR- 0008083-
2010
BEFORE: STABILE, SOLANO, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2016
Appellant, Steven David Sterner, appeals pro se from the October 8,
2015 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County ( "PCRA
court "), denying his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541 -9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the background of this matter as follows.
In CP- 09 -CR- 0008083 -2010, Appellant pled guilty to 18
Pa.C.S. §§ 2701(a)(1), 2709(a)(1), 3701(a)(1)(v),
3921(a), and 5506 before Judge Cepparulo on April 26,
2011. Appellant was sentenced to six to twenty -three
months and a term of probation. He later violated the
terms of his probation and it was revoked on October 17,
2013. In CP- 09 -[CR- ]0005652 -2010, Appellant was
convicted on November 10, 2010, for violating 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 3503(a)(1)(i) and sentenced to twenty -three months,
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64011-16
time served, by Judge Finely. Appellant did not file his
PCRA Petition until February 18, 2015.
Appellant was appointed counsel on May 21, 2015,
to represent him on the PCRA matter. However, after a
review of the case, appointed counsel filed a motion on
July 31, 2015, for leave to withdraw his appearance due to
the lack of meritorious issues. The [PCRA court] granted
the motion to withdraw on August 4, 2015, after
considering appointed counsel's Finley Letter, and
informed Appellant of his right to either proceed pro se or
retain private counsel. The [PCRA court] subsequently
entered a [n]otice of [i]ntent to [d]ismiss [p]ursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on August 7, 2015.
After discussion with appointed counsel on the
matter, the [PCRA court] vacated the [o]rder dated August
4, 2015, on August 25, 2015, to allow Appellant additional
time to respond to the motion to withdraw and to explain
to the [PCRA court] why his PCRA [p]etition should not be
dismissed for lack of merit. A second extension of time to
allow Appellant an opportunity to respond was given on
September 16, 2015. Having received a response from
Appellant on September 24, 2015, the [PCRA court] again
considered appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and
once again granted leave to withdraw on October 8, 2015.
In addition, the [PCRA court] having reviewed Appellant's
PCRA [p]etition in detail, determined that there was no
merit to Appellant's claims and that the [p]etition was filed
untimely. Therefore, the [PCRA court] denied and
dismissed Appellant's [p]etition on October 8, 2015, and
informed [him of] his right to appeal.
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/22/16, at 1 -2 (footnotes omitted).
Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for permission to appeal in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania on November 6, 2015. Appellant proceeded
to file a document titled "Oral Motion" on December 18, 2015. This Court
entered an order on February 12, 2016, determining that Appellant's petition
for permission to appeal would be treated as a notice of appeal. See
-2
J-S64011-16
Commonwealth v. Sterner, No. 153 EDM 2015, order, at 1 (Pa. Super.
Filed Feb 12. 2016).
Appellant's brief fails to comply with the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114 -2119.
Pursuant to Rule 2101,
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these 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 of reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or
dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court is to construe liberally, materials filed by a pro
se litigant; therefore, this Court will address discernible arguments in the
defective brief in the interest of justice. See Commonwealth v. Lyons,
833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003).
In the matter sub judice, Appellant's seven paragraph brief does not
assert any discernible issues on appeal. See Appellant's Brief at 1 -2.
Appellant's brief does not contain a question presented, argument, or issues
on appeal. Appellant's brief is essentially a letter to this Court detailing
some procedural history and as best we can determine, the general
assertion that the certified record contains contradictory statements.
Appellant does not identify any specific contradictory statements.
Appellant's brief is woefully short of preserving or stating issues that would
allow this Court to perform meaningful appellate review. Regrettably, even
-3
J-S64011-16
though Appellant is pro se, and this Court construes filings from pro se
litigants liberally, Appellants fails to inform this Court of any issues to
review. Accordingly, we conclude Appellant's appeal is without merit. We
direct that a copy of the PCRA court's April 22, 2016 opinion be attached to
any future filings in this case.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
J:seph Seletyn,
D.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/8/2016
-4