Opinion
J-S12009-17 No. 1233 MDA 2016
03-17-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RAMSEY WESLEY RANDALL Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 17, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003823-2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Ramsey Wesley Randall, appeals pro se from judgment of sentence entered June 17, 2016, in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. We quash this appeal.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Following a grand jury investigation into several instances of check fraud, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with nine counts of forgery, two counts each of corrupt organizations, dealing in the proceeds of unlawful activity, theft by deception, and receiving stolen property, and a single count of criminal attempt to commit theft by deception. Per Appellant's request, the court conducted a Grazier hearing and Appellant signed a written waiver form. The court permitted Appellant to continue pro se and appointed standby counsel. Following a hearing on Appellant's pretrial motions, the Commonwealth withdrew both counts of corrupt organizations and dealing in the proceeds of unlawful activity. The court denied relief on Appellant's other issues. Appellant appealed to this Court following the denial of his pretrial motions, which we quashed as interlocutory.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4101(a); 911(b); 5111(a); 3922(a); 3925(a); and 901(a), respectively.
Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).
Thereafter, Appellant proceeded to a bench trial, where the court found him guilty of all remaining charges. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 2 years, 82 days to 10 years of incarceration. Appellant's case is now properly before us.
Prior to sentencing, Appellant prematurely filed a notice of appeal to this Court. "A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof." Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). Therefore, we treat Appellant's notice of appeal as having been timely filed on June 17, 2016, the date the court announced Appellant's judgment of sentence. --------
On appeal, Appellant has submitted to the Court a single handwritten page in lieu of a formal argument brief. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the following guidelines regarding the content of an appellant's brief:
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 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.
(b) Opinions below.—There shall be appended to the brief a copy of any opinions delivered by any court or other government unit below relating to the order or other determination under review, if pertinent to the questions involved. If an opinion has been reported, that fact and the appropriate citation shall also be set forth.Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
"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." In re Ullman , 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, an appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage due to a lack of legal training. See Commonwealth v. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted). "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." Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
Appellant's "brief" is awash in grammatical errors, obscenities, and nonsense. Beyond that, Appellant has failed to meet even a single requirement specified in Rule 2111. In its essence, Appellant's brief amounts to a blanket protest against "governmental grievance done unto him by an agent or agencies of the government," without any structured, meaningful argument. See Appellant's Brief, at 1. Appellant's decision to flout our Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to furnish us with a proper appellate brief renders us incapable of conducting meaningful judicial review. While we are sensitive to the difficulties of proceeding without counsel, we decline to act as counsel for Appellant. Consequently, we find ourselves constrained to quash this appeal for failure to substantially comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Ullman , 995 A.2d at 1211; Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
Additionally, Appellant filed three motions with this Court during the pendency of this appeal. The latest, a 142-page behemoth, presents a list of "concessions" Appellant demands in exchange for dropping a civil rights lawsuit he plans to raise, including expungement of his record, a deposit of over $500,000,000.00 dollars in his personal bank account, and two rolls of quarters. The same motion also refers to the appellate brief he personally drafted and submitted as a "piece o' shit," purportedly issues both a summons and a default judgment in a civil action filed against "these courts," and recounts what appears to be a short fairy tale based on his experiences in the criminal justice system. Appellant's two other pro se motions are a compilation of similarly confused missives. Unfortunately, none of these filings raises a cognizable issue for our review. Therefore, his motions are denied.
Appeal quashed. Motions denied. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/17/2017