Torres claim in Pennsylvania

2026See Commonwealth v. Elliott, 80 A.3d 415, 430 (Pa. 2013) (holding that claim is waived because it was not included in PCRA petition and PCRA court ____________________________________________ 4 Strictly speaking, Torres’ judgment of sentence became final on April 25, 2009, but because that was a Saturday, we extend the timeframe to the following Monday.

2024Additionally, we cannot reach the merits of Torres’ appeal because Torres’ brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2135, substantially impeding our review. “[B]riefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial.” Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (if the brief of the -6- J-S26014-24 appellant fails to conform with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in all

2024Although we are “willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit.” Tchirkow, 160 A.3d at 804 . “[W]hen defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely[.]” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141 , 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2023See Radecki, supra. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Torres’ sentence, and that Torres’ challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence is without merit.

2023See Radecki, supra. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Torres’ sentence, and that Torres’ challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence is without merit.

2023See Robinson, supra. Judgment of sentence affirmed. - 13 - J-A13023-23 Stevens, P.J.E., joins this Opinion.

2023See Robinson, supra. Judgment of sentence affirmed. - 13 - J-A13023-23 Stevens, P.J.E., joins this Opinion.

2023See Commonwealth v Todd, 820 A.2d, 707 712 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining that Superior Court “must defer to the credibility determinations made by the [PCRA] court that observed a witness’s demeanor first hand”). -8- J-S43025-22 In addition, we reject Torres claim that he was wrongly advised of his post-sentence rights because he was not told that he could file an appeal pro se.

2023See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 , 807-08 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2023See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 807-08 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2023See Commonwealth v. Swope, 117 A.3d 763 , 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim combined with claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors raises substantial question).

2023See Commonwealth v. Swope, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excessive sentence claim combined with claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors raises substantial question).

2022See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining sufficiency of evidence review does not include assessment of credibility, which is more properly characterized as challenge to weight of evidence). “[A] sufficiency of the evidence challenge is directed to the adequacy of the evidence as to the elements of the offenses of which a defendant has been convicted.” Johnson, supra at 65 .

2022See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining sufficiency of evidence review does not include assessment of credibility, which is more properly characterized as challenge to weight of evidence). “[A] sufficiency of the evidence challenge is directed to the adequacy of the evidence as to the elements of the offenses of which a defendant has been convicted.” Johnson, supra at 65 .

2015This Court has previously held that this presents a substantial question so as to invoke our review, see Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa. Super. 2003), and so we will review Torres’ claim.

2002See Liciaga v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, 528 Pa. 258 , 566 A.2d 246, 248 (1989) (preliminary hearing magistrate not empowered to make credibility determination); See also Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180 (Pa.Super.2001) (Commonwealth establishes prima facie case when it produces evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to a jury; weight and credibility are not factors). 4 Thus, the ha-beas court erred in accepting the veracity of Torres’s preliminary hearing testimony rather than simply determining if she had in fact been

2002See Liciaga v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, 528 Pa. 258 , 566 A.2d 246, 248 (1989) (preliminary hearing magistrate not empowered to make credibility determination); See also Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180 (Pa.Super.2001) (Commonwealth establishes prima facie case when it produces evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to a jury; weight and credibility are not factors). 4 Thus, the ha-beas court erred in accepting the veracity of Torres’s preliminary hearing testimony rather than simply determining if she had in fact been

2002See Liciaga v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, 528 Pa. 258 , 566 A.2d 246, 248 (1989) (preliminary hearing magistrate not empowered to make credibility determination); See also Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180 (Pa.Super.2001) (Commonwealth establishes prima facie case when it produces evidence that, if accepted as true, would warrant the trial judge to allow the case to go to a jury; weight and credibility are not factors). 4 Thus, the ha-beas court erred in accepting the veracity of Torres’s preliminary hearing testimony rather than simply determining if she had in fact been