Longo, A. v. Longo, R. ( 2017 )

J-S55010-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ALICIA M. LONGO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT T. LONGO, JR., :
:
Appellant : No. 727 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree April 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County
Civil Division at No(s): CV-375-2016
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Appellant, Robert T. Longo, Jr., appeals pro se from the April 4, 2017
Divorce Decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County.
We dismiss this appeal.
The underlying facts are not relevant to our disposition. Appellate
briefs “must conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure” and this Court may dismiss or quash an appeal if the
defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d
496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing
required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements of
each subsection of brief on appeal).
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S55010-17
Although appellate courts are “willing to construe liberally materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit
upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(citation omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop
arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d
766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Further, “[w]hen 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, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.
Super. 1982).
Appellant’s Brief is woefully inadequate. It does not contain a
statement of jurisdiction, the text of the order from which Appellant purports
to appeal, a statement of the scope and standard of review, a summary of
the argument, the trial court’s 1925(a) Opinion, or an averment that the trial
court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6), (10), (11).
In addition, the statement of questions involved is unacceptably vague
and inadequate.1 The argument section is completely devoid of, among
____________________________________________
1
Appellant raises the following issues:
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S55010-17
other things, any discussion and citation to supporting authority as required
by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). See Hardy, supra at 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating
that it is an appellant’s duty when briefing issues to present arguments that
are sufficiently developed with pertinent discussion, references to the record,
and citations to legal authorities); Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d
362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“When an appellant fails to develop his
issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is
waived.”). Rather, in challenging his Divorce Decree, Appellant repeatedly
makes assertions that do not relate to the substance of the Decree, including
vague allegations that Appellee committed crimes and the courts failed to
investigate.
Appellant’s failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to
develop his issues with citation to legal authorities prevents this Court from
conducting meaningful appellate review. We, thus, conclude that Appellant
has waived his issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
(1) Should the appeal be granted?
(2) Should the judge’s decision be overturned?
(3) Should [Appellee]’s crimes be investigated?
(4) Should [Appellee] be charged with the crimes?
Appellant’s Brief at unpaginated 2 (some capitalization omitted).
-3-
J-S55010-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/2017
-4-