Wilkins, G v AG Kane (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S76004-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GLUE WILKINS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. HON. KATHLEEN KANE, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, HON. KEVIN A. HESS, P.J., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, HONORABLE FREDERICK J. AMMERMAN, P.J., CLEARFIELD COUNTY, AND HON. TIMOTHY CREANY, P.J., CAMBRIA COUNTY, Appellees No. 852 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered March 11, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Criminal Division, at No(s): 21-MD-755-2012. BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2013 Glue Wilkins ( Appellant ) appeals pro se from the trial court s order denying his motion for a REPLEADER ON DISAPPROVAL OF PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and the rationale for its disposition as follows: [Appellant] in this case, Glue Wilkins, also apparently known as Allen Wilkins, has filed an appeal in the matter which appears at a miscellaneous docket in our Clerk of *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S76004-13 Courts Office. The appeal, specifically, is from our order of March 11, 2013, dismissing [Appellant s] motion for a Repleader on [ ]Disapproval[ ] of Private Criminal Complaints. We dismissed his motion in March because we could discern no connection between his motion and the County of Cumberland. In his petition, filed on March 7, 2013, [Appellant] indulges in a rambling jeremiad dealing with the responsibilities of the courts, prosecutors and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Nowhere does he complain of anything done or left undone by the Court or District Attorney of Cumberland County. Nor were we independently aware of any such concern. We have now learned for the first time, on appeal, that [Appellant] is complaining of action taken by the District Attorney in August of 2012. Specifically, it appears (though it is not entirely clear) that [Appellant] sought to file criminal charges, including obstructing administration of law or other governmental function, against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The charge, in turn, arises out of certain irregularities in record keeping as it pertains to [Appellant s] current incarceration on a count of Theft of a Motor Vehicle [sic]. The District Attorney s Office declined to permit the filing of [Appellant s] private criminal complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 provides that if the attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves a private criminal complaint, he shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the Court of Common Pleas for review of the decision. Apparently, [Appellant] had intended that we review the August 2012 decision of Assistant District Attorney Richard H. Bradbury, Jr. Unfortunately, nowhere in his petition did [Appellant] ask us to do that. The 9th edition of Black s Law Dictionary defines a petition as a formal written request presented to a Court. Obviously, in order to properly review [Appellant s] request, the Court needs to know what it is that he wants. We have not yet been given that opportunity. In the meantime, we note that a pro se litigant is not absolved from complying with procedural rules. See Hoover v. Davila, 862 A.2d 591 (Pa.Super. 2004). -2- J-S76004-13 Trial Court Opinion, 6/18/13, at 1-2. In a prior decision, this Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant s previously filed civil complaint alleging misconduct against the District Attorney of Dauphin County Edward M. Marsico, Jr. We stated: [A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. 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. Id.,; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003). 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. Id. at 252. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 454 Pa. Super. 451, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996). Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006). Rule 2111 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides the following requirements: Brief of the Appellant (a) General rule. The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order: (1) Statement of Jurisdiction. (2) Order or other determination in question. (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review. -3- J-S76004-13 (4) Statement of the questions involved. (5) Statement of the case. (6) Summary of argument. (7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the discretionary aspects of sentence, if applicable. (8) Argument for appellant. (9) A short sought. conclusion stating the precise relief (10) The opinions and pleadings specified Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule. in (11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered. (b) Opinions below. There shall be appended to the brief a copy of any opinions delivered by any court or other government unit below relating to the order or other determination under review, if pertinent to the questions involved. If an opinion has been reported, that fact and the appropriate citation shall also be set forth. Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), (b). Appellant has filed an APPELLANT BRIEF, which is actually a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, and an ADDENDUM TO APPELLATE BRIEF, in which Appellant, at least nominally, attempts to comply with the requirements of an appellant s brief. Despite -4- J-S76004-13 his latest effort, we conclude that Appellant s substantial noncompliance with Pa.R.A.P. 2111 renders his brief defective. Importantly, while Appellant raises three issues, his argument with regard to all three issues is contained in a single section, where he makes bare assertions regarding each issue without citation to pertinent authority. Instead, he chastises the trial court for its confusion in not recognizing that he filed his latest motion in Cumberland County because that is where the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ( DOC ) is headquartered. See Addendum to Appellate Brief at 6. While Appellant also mocks the trial court for not understanding what relief he sought, see id., our review of his repleader motion reveals that Appellant does not ask the court to review the district attorney s disapproval of his private criminal complaint in an intelligible fashion. Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals that Appellant s claim that the DOC, trial judges, and other governmental employees have committed criminal acts is specious. Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/13/2013 -5-

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.