Com. v. Fluker, B. ( 2016 )

J-A16042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
BRENDA FLUKER, :
:
Appellant : No. 1349 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order September 1, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-MD-0003960-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2016
Brenda Fluker (Appellant) appeals from the September 1, 2015 order
that denied her petition to appeal nunc pro tunc from citations she received
for traffic violations. We dismiss the appeal.
“[A]lthough 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). “[A] pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth
in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106
A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Lyons, 833 A.2d at 252). “[A]ny
layperson choosing to represent himself [or herself] in a legal proceeding

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A16042-16
must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his [or her] lack of
expertise and legal training will prove his [or her] undoing.”
Commonwealth v. Gray, 608 A.2d 534, 550 (Pa. Super. 1992) (quoting
Vann v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review,
494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985)).
Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented
as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). Her brief also is in violation of
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review);
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(8) (requiring an argument section). The brief further is devoid of
citations to the record or to any legal authority as are required by Pa.R.A.P.
2119(c) and (b), respectively.
Appellant’s utter disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left
this Court without the ability to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa. Super. 1982)
(declining to address merits of appeal because the brief was “so defective as
to preclude effective, appellate review”).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without consideration of the
merits of Appellant’s complaints. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (“If the appellant
fails to take the action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of
-2-
J-A16042-16
Judicial Administration for the preparation of the transcript, the appellate
court may take such action as it deems appropriate, which may include
dismissal of the appeal.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief
or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or
other matter may be … dismissed.”).
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/13/2016
-3-