Com. v. Kress, G. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A19027-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GLENN MICHAEL KRESS, JR., Appellant No. 1760 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 7, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division Docket No: CP-02-SA-001157-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Appellant, Glenn Michael Kress, Jr., appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered on August 7, 2013. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant was found guilty of speeding.1 He filed a timely summary appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County; however, he failed to appear for his trial de novo. Therefore, the trial court found him guilty. This timely appeal followed. Instead of filing a brief on appeal, Appellant filed a one-page letter which requests relief based on equitable principles. This letter fails to comply with several Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2116, 2117, 2118, and 2119. 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 3362(a)(3). *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. See, e.g., J-A19027-14 [W]e decline to become the appellant s counsel. When . . . briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a Court will not consider the merits thereof. Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 943 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal alteration and citation omitted). Although we could discuss the deficiencies with respect to each rule of court listed above, we focus on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2116, which provides that No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby. Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). The lack of a statement of questions involved, along with the other deficiencies, renders Appellant s letter wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d at 942. Therefore, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.2 2 3 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 provides that: Briefs . . . shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, . . . if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. 3 Even if we were to consider the merits of Appellant s appeal, we would affirm. There is no requirement that radar be used to determine a vehicle s speed. Other methods, such as VASCAR, can be used. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 734 A.2d 879, 881 (Pa. Super. 1999). -2- J-A19027-14 Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 -3-
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.
