This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
J-A21016-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 18, 2017)

J-A21016-17 No. 2 WDA 2017




Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 3, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0000147-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J. JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM :

Appellant, Robert Roy Quinn, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered on August 3, 2016 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, as made final by the denial of post-sentence motions on October 4, 2016. We affirm.

At the conclusion of trial on June 10, 2016, a jury found Appellant guilty of stalking, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1(a)(2). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Appellant to incarceration in county prison for a period of 12 months less one day to 24 months less one day.

Appellant filed timely pro se post-sentence motions on August 12, 2016, which the trial court denied on October 4, 2016. Because the October 4 order was not forwarded to Appellant, the court, on November 22, 2016, reinstated Appellant's direct appeal rights and allowed him to file an appeal within 30 days. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on December 20, 2016 together with a concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant's concise statement raised seven claims, which the trial court addressed in an opinion issued on March 24, 2017.

We have carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, the opinion of the learned trial court, and the certified record prepared in this case. In its opinion, the trial court determined that Appellant was not entitled to relief because he failed to preserve his claims for appellate review or, alternatively, his claims lacked merit. See generally Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/17, at 1-36. We wholly concur in the trial court's assessments and conclude that the court thoroughly, adequately, and accurately addressed each of the issues Appellant raises on appeal. Accordingly, we shall affirm for the reasons expressed by the trial court and adopt its opinion as our own. The parties are hereby instructed to include a copy of the trial court's opinion in all future filings relating to our disposition of this appeal.

We note that Appellant's brief does not comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure in many ways which, as the Commonwealth points out, makes it difficult to identify the various issues and arguments raised on appeal. These defects alone support dismissal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (appeal may be dismissed where defects in appellant's brief are substantial); Kern v. Kern , 892 A.2d 1, 5-6 (Pa. Super. 2005) (dismissal appropriate where failure to conform to appellate rules hampers this Court's ability to discern contested issues), appeal denied, 903 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 2006). Here, however, the trial court's opinion addresses all of the claims raised in Appellant's concise statement and, as such, discusses all of the issues Appellant appears to raise in his brief. For this reason, we have elected to forgo dismissal and, instead, deny relief on the merits for the sound reasons set forth by the trial court. --------

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/18/2017

Image materials not available for display.