JUDGMENT ORDER FILED: July 23, 2013.
Appeal from the Order Entered December 5, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-SA-0002172-2012.
BEFORE: BENDER, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. [*]
This is a pro se appeal by Appellant, Richard Williams, Jr., from the order to pay a fine of one hundred dollars imposed following his unsuccessful appeal from a conviction before a district magistrate of the summary offense of disorderly conduct.
Upon our review of Appellant's brief, we find it to be patently defective, as it fails in numerous respects to comport with Pa.R.A.P. 2111 through 2119. Most significantly, Appellant's brief is incoherent such that there is no discernible legal argument for our analysis. Rule 2101 grants us the authority to dismiss an appeal when the defects in a brief are substantial. The fact that Appellant is pro se does not excuse his complete failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. While "this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant." Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Nor does it entitle him to have this Court advocate on his behalf. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1996). "When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, [and] when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review[, this] Court will not consider the merits thereof." Id. (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we are compelled to dismiss ...