Opinion
850 EDA 2021 J-A24030-21
01-07-2022
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. XAVIER MCGHEE Appellant
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 13, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002753-2019
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. [*]
JUDGMENT ORDER
DUBOW, J.
Appellant, Xavier McGhee, appeals pro se from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County granting his counsel's application to withdraw and denying without a hearing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.
A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history of this case is unnecessary to our disposition. Appellant's pro se brief fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy and we are, therefore, unable to conduct meaningful appellate review.
Briefly, on January 7, 2020, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea with the Commonwealth. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea and sentenced him to the negotiated 8-to-20-year term of incarceration. On October 13, 2020, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his first. The court appointed counsel who, on February 3, 2021, filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and application to withdraw. On April 14, 2021, after giving notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's petition without a hearing and granted counsel's application to withdraw.
"The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority." Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs, including a "separately and distinctly entitled . . . argument for appellant") and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs with arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review, we may dismiss the appeal or find certain issues waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in dismissal of appeal). "This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).
Appellant's brief is woefully inadequate. Most significantly, the brief wholly lacks an argument section and, as a result, Appellant has not analyzed any issues with reference to the record and controlling legal precedent. This briefing deficiency fatally hampers our ability to consider Appellant's issues on appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Appellant's brief contains a section titled "summary of argument" that is likewise devoid of substantive argument. See Appellant's Br. at 13 (unpaginated). Appellant merely asserts, baldly and without references to the record or legal authority, that the PCRA court should have held a hearing on his allegation of trial counsel ineffectiveness. Id.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.