From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Smith

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 16, 2016
No. J-A19024-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)

Opinion

J-A19024-16 No. 2726 EDA 2015

09-16-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHANDLER P. SMITH Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-SA-0000426-2014 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Chandler P. Smith appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence imposed on August 21, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. On that same day, at the conclusion of a bench trial, the court convicted Smith of the summary offense of disorderly conduct (engaging in fighting). The court sentenced Smith to costs and fines. For the reasons below, we dismiss his appeal.

Due to the nature of our disposition, we do not need to recite, in detail, the events that gave rise to the charge involved in this case and the prior procedural history. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2015, at 1-7. It is sufficient to set forth the trial court's findings from Smith's bench trial as follows:

At the conclusion of the trial, this Court made the determination, based upon the credibility of the two witnesses, that [Morrisville Borough Police] Officer [John] Aspromonti had been on routine patrol [on May 21, 2014,] when he heard loud yelling and screaming and approached [Smith] to determine the cause. With the presence of anywhere from twenty (20) to seventy (70) people in the area, [Smith] approached Officer Aspromonti in an aggressive and threatening manner and directed loud profanities at him. Officer Aspromonti could have reasonably believed [Smith]'s conduct constituted the action of reaching for a weapon, and he therefore displayed his Taser weapon. This Court concluded that [Smith]'s actions, while cloaked in allegations of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act or provisions of the Human Relations Act, were not sufficient to justify the disturbance, and consequently [Smith] was found guilty of the charge of [d]isorderly [c]onduct, and ordered to pay the fine and costs originally imposed by the district justice.
Id. at 7 (record citation omitted). On September 1, 2015, Smith filed a motion to reconsider. On September 9, 2015, the court denied his motion, stating:
Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim Pro. 720 (D) Summary Case Appeals, "There shall be no post-sentence motion in summary case appeals following a trial de novo in the court of common pleas. The imposition of sentence immediately following a determination of guilt at the conclusion of the trial de novo shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal.
Order, 9/9/2015. Smith also filed a timely notice of appeal.

It merits mention Smith represented himself at trial. See Commonwealth v. Long , 688 A.2d 198, 201 (Pa. Super. 1996) ("[T]here is no right to counsel where the only sentence provided for in a summary violation is a fine and costs.").

On September 8, 2015, the trial court ordered Smith to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Smith filed a concise statement on September 21, 2015. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on October 7, 2015.

On appeal, Smith presents one issue:

Did the trial court silence me as a person with a disability by listening to what I had to say and finding me guilty anyway?
Smith's Brief at 2.

Preliminarily, we note that Smith failed to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119. As this Court has previously stated in Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007):

Rule 2119 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.

(b) Citations of authorities. Citations of authorities in briefs shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 governing citations of authorities.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a-b).

When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. Commonwealth v. Gould , 2006 PA Super 348, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006). The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal authorities. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b), (c). Citations to authorities must articulate the principles for which they are cited. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).
Id. at 771. Moreover,
although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005) (some citations omitted). As such, we cannot serve as Smith's counsel and litigate his claim for him.

Here, Smith's argument fails to provide any legal discussion or point to any citation of governing authorities in relation to how the court silenced him as a disabled person while listening to his testimony and convicting him. Moreover, a review of his argument reveals that it consists of a recitation of the facts and his alleged grievances against the Morrisville Borough Free Library with respect to a non-operational elevator, and does not touch upon any alleged error committed at his August 21, 2015, trial. See Smith's Brief at 1-3. As such, Smith's brief fails to conform with the requirements of Rule 2119.

Furthermore, we note in addressing Smith's concise statement, the trial court had to speculate as to the issue that Smith was raising on appeal in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2015, at 8 ("The issue raised in [Smith]'s first statement is presumably a challenge to the weight of the evidence.") (emphasis added).

It has been held that when the trial court directs an appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, any issues that are not raised in such a statement will be waived for appellate review. Similarly, when issues are too vague for the trial court to identify and address, that is the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all. Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal. Thus, Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process. When the trial court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.
Commonwealth v. Smith , 955 A.2d 391, 393 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (case citations and quotation marks omitted).

"Even if the trial court correctly guessed the issues Appellant brings before this Court, the vagueness of Appellant's Concise Statement renders all issues raised therein waived." Commonwealth v. McCree , 857 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis added), aff'd, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007).

Accordingly, because Smith's brief is substantially defective and fails to conform to the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of the issue. Further, his concise statement was considerably lacking in specificity. We emphasize we are an error-correcting court and Smith has failed to demonstrate or explain how the court erred at his bench trial. Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal.

We note our standard of review with respect to summary appeals: "Our standard of review is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law and whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence." Commonwealth v. Dixon , 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Appeal dismissed with prejudice. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/16/2016


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Smith

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 16, 2016
No. J-A19024-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHANDLER P. SMITH Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 16, 2016

Citations

No. J-A19024-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2016)