Opinion
J-S45022-18 No. 160 MDA 2018
08-27-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ARMONI M. JOHNSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 4, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002713-2011 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Armoni M. Johnson appeals pro se from the order entered January 4, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, that denied, after a hearing his timely, first petition filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Johnson seeks relief from the judgment of sentence to serve an aggregate term of 5½ to 13 years' imprisonment, followed by 5 years' probation, imposed after he was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault. While it is difficult to discern Johnson's claims, we are able to glean two issues, namely, (1) ineffectiveness of counsel/conflict of interest, and (2) ineffectiveness of counsel/ Brady violation/prosecutorial misconduct. Both claims are related to the fact that Justin Barna, the victim in this case, was the confidential informant in an unrelated case against Johnson (Docket No. 2553-2012). Based upon the following, we affirm.
The PCRA court conducted a Grazier hearing and allowed Johnson to proceed pro se. See Commonwealth v . Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1), (a)(4).
The unrebutted testimony at the PCRA hearing was Justin Barna became a confidential informant against Johnson after Johnson had already assaulted him. See N.T. (PCRA Hearing), 12/1/2017, at 50-51.
The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in the PCRA court's opinion, and there is no need to restate the background of this case herein. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/4/2018. We simply state that the charges against Johnson stemmed from the August 7, 2011, stabbing of victim, Justin Barna, who had previously purchased drugs from Johnson.
Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is well settled: "For the claims on which a hearing was held, we consider whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Baumhammers , 92 A.3d 708, 714 (Pa. 2014).
At the outset, we stress that appellate briefs are required to "conform in all material respects" with the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the defects in the brief are substantial. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 497-498 (Pa. Super. 2005) ("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."). Furthermore, an appellant's pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply with the rules of appellate practice. See id. at 498 ("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. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996) ("While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by pro se litigants, ... appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because [he] lacks legal training.") (citation omitted). Here, Johnson's pro se brief fails to conform to our Appellate Rules and it is difficult to decipher his arguments. Nevertheless, because we are able to glean the nature of two claims from the brief, we will proceed to examine the merits of his claims.
The PCRA court has provided a thorough opinion that fully addresses the issues raised in this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/4/2018 (finding: (1) Johnson's claim that trial counsel's withdrawal in the unrelated matter pending against Johnson (Docket No. 2553-2012) adversely affected this case lacked arguable merit and there was no ineffectiveness prejudice, and (2) Johnson's claim that the Commonwealth did not disclose that Justin Barna, the victim in this case, was the confidential informant in the case pending against him at Docket No. 2533-2012 failed as Johnson's evidence did not establish the elements of a Brady violation and there was no ineffectiveness prejudice). Based on our review, we find the PCRA court's rationale is correct and there is no basis upon which to disturb the decision of the PCRA court. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.
In the event of further proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court's January 4, 2018, opinion to this memorandum.
Order affirmed. All outstanding motions dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 08/27/2018
Image materials not available for display.