Com. v. McLeary, M. (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S74004-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL MCLEARY Appellant No. 1855 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 4, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002256-2007 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, J., and STRASSBURGER , J. DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED DECEMBER 22, 2014 I agree with the Majority that the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief prevent meaningful appellate review. Because I believe the proper disposition under these circumstances is dismissal rather than quashal, I respectfully dissent. See Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Strassburger, J., concurring and dissenting) (noting that our Supreme Court in Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001), enumerated the circumstances under which quashal is appropriate, all of which implicated lack of jurisdiction over the appeal; in the absence of those circumstances, dismissal is the appropriate disposition). ____________________________________________ Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
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.
