Com. v. Sayyed, M. ( 2023 )

J-S17015-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MANSOOR VIQAR SAYYED :
:
Appellant : No. 1393 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 4, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-SA-0001014-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 1, 2023
Mansoor Viqar Sayyed appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence,
imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his
summary conviction for disorderly conduct.1 We quash.
The trial court set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows:
[Sayyed] filed a summary appeal from a conviction in the
Magisterial District Court for disorderly conduct[.]
During the de novo hearing of November 4, 2022, Officer Carl
Rech, with the Brentwood Police Department, testified that while
he was off duty, he witnessed [Sayyed] outside the public library
urinating on a tree with children and adults nearby. He informed
Brentwood Police Officer Davidson, who was on duty, what he had
witnessed. Officer Davidson issued a summons to [Sayyed].
[Sayyed] argued that he has a medical condition and needed to
relieve himself immediately or he would have had an accident.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4).
J-S17015-23
However, Officer Davidson testified that [Sayyed] was 25 or 30
feet from the library and could have used the public bathroom in
the library’s lobby.
This court found [Sayyed] guilty following a de novo hearing on
November 4, 2022, imposed a fine of $100.00, and waived the
costs. [Sayyed] filed a timely [pro se] appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court on November 28, 2022. This court ordered
[Sayyed] to file a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [concise] statement of []
errors complained of on appeal on December 2, 2022, which was
filed on December 19, 2022.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/20/23, at [1-2] (paragraphs reordered; citations to
record and unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Sayyed raises the following claim in his statement of the questions
involved: “Whether [Sayyed’s] sentencing, pursuant to the hearing[,] was
lawful or not is the question[,] especially concerning his disability[,] as the
officer never knew or even asked him a reason at the time.” Brief of Appellant,
at 3 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).
Prior to addressing the merits of Sayyed’s claim, we must determine
whether it is waived. In its brief, the Commonwealth asks us to deny relief
because Sayyed’s brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Specifically, the Commonwealth notes that Sayyed’s
statement of the questions involved seemingly purports to raise a
sentencing claim. However, this “question” is inconsistent with
[Sayyed’s] “argument[,” which] is an alphabetical list of
grievances with those involved with his case[,] including the court,
the prosecutor, and the police officers. [Sayyed] also includes
some personal information that he apparently believes provides a
basis for relief.
Brief of Appellee, at 8 (citations and unnecessary capitalization omitted). The
Commonwealth further notes that Sayyed also fails to develop any argument,
-2-
J-S17015-23
with citation to the record or pertinent authority, as required by Pa.R.A.P.
2119(a), and that his argument “contains nothing more than an inventory of
purported facts presented in the light most favorable to him.” Id. at 9. We
agree.
Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court
may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with the
requirements set forth in those rules. Id.; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833
A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003). Although this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon an appellant. Lyons, 883 A.2d at 251-52. To the contrary, any person
choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding “must, to some reasonable
extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove
[his] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.
1996) (citation omitted).
Because Sayyed’s brief is nothing more than, as the Commonwealth
observes, “an inventory of purported facts presented in the light most
favorable to him,” it does not “allow us to clearly define what[,] exactly[,]
[Sayyed’s] point of controversy is.” Id. Accordingly, we are unable to conduct
meaningful appellate review and are constrained to quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-3-
J-S17015-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/1/2023
-4-