Opinion
J-A20030-15 No. 3210 EDA 2014
10-07-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RUBEN M. COLLAZO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-SA-0000089-2014
BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and WECHT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Appellant, Ruben M. Collazo, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered following a de novo summary appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County. We affirm.
On July 22, 2015, Appellant filed a motion for continuance in this Court that appears to be a copy of a motion for a continuance in a separate case filed at Monroe County criminal docket number CP-45-CR-2279-2014. As that case is not before this Court and because it has no bearing on the case at bar, Appellant's motion is DENIED.
In December of 2010, at the Mount Airy Casino in Paradise Township, Appellant was witnessed distributing business cards that advertised his website. Because solicitation is not permitted at the casino, security ejected Appellant from the property and directed him not to return. Additionally, Mr. Trevor Tasetano, a security manager at Mount Airy, personally telephoned Appellant and advised him that he had violated Mount Airy policy and was now barred from the premises.
Despite this bar, on or about November 29, 2013, Mount Airy security officers were advised by casino employees that Appellant was again on the property. Mount Airy security then called the State Police to report a suspected trespasser.
Appellant was charged with criminal trespass and found guilty. Thereafter, Appellant filed a summary appeal from his conviction, and the trial court held a de novo trial. On October 23, 2014, the trial court found Appellant guilty of criminal trespass and imposed a fine of $300.00. This timely appeal followed.
On November 25, 2014, the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On December 15, 2014, Appellant, pro se, filed a document entitled "Defendant's Concise Statement." In the concise statement, Appellant averred that the verdict was based on unsupported allegations, the trial court erred in applying 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, and Mount Airy infringed on Appellant's freedom of religion. Concise Statement, 12/15/14, at 1-2. However, in his pro se appellate brief, Appellant has raised only his challenge concerning the alleged violation of 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515. Appellant's Brief at 8-9. Therefore, the balance of Appellant's claims of error, which were raised in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, are deemed waived due to his failure to present them in the statement of questions involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) ("No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.").
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record before us on appeal, and the thorough opinion of the trial court dated January 7, 2015. While the trial court provided Appellant ample opportunity to present his defense and challenge the Commonwealth's case, Appellant's attack on 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 is both misplaced and wholly inaccurate. As the trial court explained at both the summary appeal and in its opinion, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 does not prevent Mount Airy from ejecting individuals who disrupt the casino's operations. It is our conclusion that the issues presented by Appellant lack merit, and the trial court's opinion aptly disposes of Appellant's claims raised on appeal.
While 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) (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." Id .
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence 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: 10/7/2015
Image materials not available for display.