Com. v. Colon-Roque, L. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S77019-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LUIS OMAR COLON-ROQUE, Appellant No. 359 MDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 17, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003358-2014 CP-36-CR-0003369-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2016 Appellant, Luis Omar Colon-Roque, appeals pro se from an order entered on February 17, 2016 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We dismiss the appeal.1 A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary for our disposition as we find that Appellant's failure to submit a brief that complies with the ____________________________________________ 1 On July 27, 2016, the Commonwealth filed an application for relief requesting dismissal of this appeal on grounds that Appellant failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111 in preparing his brief. For the reasons set forth herein, we grant the Commonwealth’s request for relief. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77019-16 requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111 forecloses our efforts to conduct meaningful appellate review. Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal where substantial defects occur. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-498 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. An appellant's brief shall contain, inter alia, a statement of jurisdiction, the order or other determination in question, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the question(s) involved, a statement of the case, a summary of the argument, an argument divided into as many parts as there are questions to be addressed, a short conclusion stating the relief sought, the opinion of the trial court, and a statement of the errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). “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.” Adams, supra at 498 (internal citation omitted). Appellant has made little to no effort to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in preparing his brief. In fact, Appellant’s brief consists solely of seven numbered and rambling paragraphs complaining, without proper development, about the constitutionality of the search to which he was subjected and the validity of his arrest. In addition, Appellant also complains about the competency of trial and PCRA counsel without citation to relevant authority or the certified record. -2- Because of these substantial J-S77019-16 omissions and defects, we are unable to undertake meaningful review. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Adams, supra at 497-498; Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Commonwealth’s application for relief granted. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/13/2016 -3- Appeal dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
