Opinion
J-A16012-16 No. 1318 WDA 2015
09-12-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. FREDERICK W. KARASH, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-SA-0000074-2015 BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Frederick W. Karash, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. We affirm.
We summarize the history of this case as follows. On March 29, 2015, Appellant was traveling on Route 8 in Erie County when he drove by Pennsylvania State Trooper Joshua Deitle and was clocked with a radar gun as traveling 73 miles per hour ("mph") in a 55 mph zone. The trooper cited Appellant for traveling 60 mph in a 55 mph zone. Prior to the hearing before the district magistrate, the Commonwealth amended the citation to reflect that Appellant was traveling 73 mph. The magistrate convicted Appellant and sentenced him to pay fines. Appellant then appealed to the court of common pleas. On August 5, 2015, the trial court convicted Appellant and imposed a $61.00 fine, plus fees and costs. This timely pro se appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review, which we reproduce verbatim:
1 Q- Did the Judge err in allowing the "amended" citation to be presented as evidence?
2 Q- Did the Judge Show discriminatory bias and incompetent arrogance by failing to review the motions brought by the defendant while wasting not a moments time in granting the Commonwealths motions?
3 Q- Did the judge err by failing to adhere strictly to ruling in regard to the Constitution of the United States (specifically 5thand 14th Amendment)?
4 Q- Did the Commonwealth fail to strictly adhere to the rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to properly issue the Citation?
5 Q- Did the Commonwealth meet the burden set forth for amending a citation pursuant to The Rules of Criminal Procedure as delineated in Commonwealth v Palmer?
6 Q- Did the Issuing authority fail to comply with the Rules of Criminal Procedure thus biasing me for future hearings/ thus violating my rights?
7 Q- Did the Judge Completely disregard the Rules of Criminal Procedure at the time of reaching a verdict thus expounding on the argument that she is discriminatively biased and arrogantly incompetent?
8 Q- Did the Judge allow contradicting stories from the prosecution to be submitted as evidence yet fail to address the issue of credibility of Commonwealth witnesses, Thus Showing reckless disregard for the interest of justice?
9 Q- Did the Judge Show Bias by granting the continuance request of the Commonwealth (without considering the responsive pleading) while denying the continuance request of the defendant?Appellant's Brief at ii-iii.
10 Q- Did the Judge have a responsibility to recuse herself? Did her failure to do so create a prejudice? Did She act outside of her Judicial Function/athority?
11 Q- Does the Judge understand the concept of a de novo hearing? Does her disinterest in the violative manner in which the initial hearing transpired elude to the fact that she has interests in revenue generation and not neutral fact finding and justice?
12 Q- Did the Commonwealth meet the Burden of Proof?
As a prefatory matter, we observe that appellate briefs must materially conform to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. Chapter 21. When a party's brief fails to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the defects are substantial, an appellate court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
It is well settled that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed with pertinent discussion of the issue, which includes citations to relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). See Commonwealth v. Genovese , 675 A.2d 331, 334 (Pa. Super. 1996) (stating that "[t]he argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed with a pertinent discussion of the point which includes citations to the relevant authority").
In Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2008), a panel of this Court offered the following relevant observation regarding the proper formation of the argument portion of an appellate brief:
In an appellate brief, parties must provide an argument as to each question, which should include a discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). This Court is neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. Commonwealth v. Williams , 566 Pa. 553, 577, 782 A.2d 517, 532 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring). To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter. Id. When an appellant fails to develop his issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is waived. Commonwealth v. Luktisch , 680 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. Super. 1996).Id. at 371-372. Thus, failure to cite case law or other legal authority in support of an argument results in waiver of the claim. Commonwealth v. Owens , 750 A.2d 872, 877 (Pa. Super. 2000).
As we have often stated, "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." Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003)). "To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing." Adams , 882 A.2d at 498 (citing Commonwealth v. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996)).
Here, the argument portion of Appellant's pro se brief contains rambling discussions of purported error lacking any pertinent analysis. Appellant's Brief at 3-11. Essentially, we are perplexed by Appellant's incomprehensible analyses and discussions. This unclear discourse has hampered meaningful appellate review. We recognize that Appellant is acting pro se. As we previously mentioned, Appellant's status as a pro se litigant does not relieve him of his responsibility to conform to the applicable rules of appellate procedure. While this particular defect in Appellant's brief warrants dismissal of the appeal, we decline to do so at this juncture.
Instantly, we have thoroughly reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the certified record before us, including the sixteen-page opinion of the trial court dated October 26, 2015, which addresses the issues raised by Appellant in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. We conclude that the issues presented by Appellant lack merit, and the trial court's opinion adequately addresses Appellant's various claims raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion and adopt its reasoning as our own. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/12/2016
Image materials not available for display.