No. 5 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from the PCHA Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at No. 1342 A & B of 1971
John J. Cerra, Carbondale, for appellant.
Ernest D. Preate, Jr., District Attorney, Scranton, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brosky, Cirillo and Lipez, JJ. Cirillo, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 578]
This is an appeal from the order of the court below denying appellant's petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA).*fn1 Although appellant states only three questions in his statement of questions presented,*fn2 he raises
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 579]
twenty-one grounds for relief, including a claim that the sentencing court placed him twice in jeopardy by imposing a consecutive sentence for robbery together with a life sentence for murder when the murder verdict could have been predicated on the felony murder doctrine. We find that appellant has waived all but his double jeopardy claim, but find merit to that claim and accordingly vacate the sentence imposed for robbery.
In 1969, appellant robbed a gas station, taking $130.41 in cash. He then abducted the gas station attendant and drove him twelve miles to an isolated area, where he shot the attendant to death.
On June 28, 1972, a jury found appellant guilty of first-degree murder and armed robbery and set the punishment for murder at life imprisonment. Post-verdict motions were filed and denied and appellant was sentenced to five to ten years for robbery, to run consecutively to the life term for murder. Appellant appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which affirmed the convictions per curiam.
Appellant subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The federal court appointed counsel to represent appellant on the petition and on October 21, 1976 denied the petition without a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed without opinion and the United States Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for certiorari.
On June 13, 1979 appellant filed a PCHA petition and was appointed counsel by the PCHA court. After a hearing, the court denied the petition. This timely appeal followed.
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 580]
Appellant's petition to the PCHA court alleged thirty-one grounds for relief of which twenty-one are pursued in this appeal. The Commonwealth argues that, under § 1180-4 of the PCHA, appellant has waived all of these issues by failing to present them either in the original proceedings before the Pennsylvania courts or in the federal habeas corpus proceedings.*fn3 However, we need not resolve this issue because we find that appellant has waived twenty of his claims due to the inadequacy of his presentation of those claims for our review and that his challenge to the sentence cannot be waived.
As to the twenty claims we find waived, we note that Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) requires that a brief contain a statement of questions involved and further provides as follows:
The statement of the questions involved must state the question or questions in the briefest and most general terms, without names, dates, amounts or particulars of any kind. It should not ordinarily exceed 15 lines, must never exceed one page, and must always be on a separate page, without any other matter appearing thereon. This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby . . .
Appellant's brief presented the following as his third question of his statement of questions involved:
Whether or Not Various Matters Raised at the Insistance [sic] and Behest of Appellant Require the Court to Grant Relief to Appellant In this Case.
[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 581]
This question defines no specific issue for appellate review or determination.
Pa.R.A.P. 2118 requires that the brief contain a summary of argument as follows:
The summary of argument shall be a concise summary of the argument of the party in the case, suitably paragraphed. The summary of argument should not exceed one page and should never exceed two pages. The summary of argument should not be a mere repetition of the statement of questions presented. The summary should be a succinct, although accurate and clear picture of the argument actually made in the brief concerning the questions.
Appellant's summary of argument with respect to the above question is as follows: Appellant asserts that the Court erred as regards various matters which are now raised at Appellant's behest and insistance. [sic]
This summary amounts to nothing more than a repetition of the above question.
Finally, appellant's argument with respect to the above question consists essentially of twenty numbered paragraphs, few longer than one sentence long, containing what amount to bald assertions of trial counsel's ineffectiveness or court error.*fn4
When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof. Commonwealth v. Sanford, 299 Pa. Super. 64, 67, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (1982); see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 494 Pa. 457, 431 A.2d 944 (1981).
We find appellant's brief to be completely inadequate as to the twenty claims raised by his third question, and, ...