Wilson, S. v. Ferrer, C., Jr. ( 2023 )

J-A23040-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
SHAQUITA WILSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
CLAUDIO FERRER JR. : No. 452 MDA 2023
v. :
:
:
CLAUDIO FERRER SR. AND EXIA :
FERRER :
:
Intervenors :
:
:
Appeal from the Order Entered February 17, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2020-FC-001476-03
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023
Appellant, Shaquita Wilson (“Mother”), appeals from the February 17,
2023, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County finding her
in contempt and imposing sanctions for violating the July 26, 2022, custody
order, which, inter alia, granted partial physical custody of three minor
children to Claudio Ferrer, Sr., and Exia Ferrer (“Paternal Grandparents”).
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23040-23
After a careful review, we conclude Mother’s pro se brief is substantially
defective and prevents meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we quash
this appeal.
We need not delve into the facts and procedural history underlying this
appeal. To summarize, Mother and Claudio Ferrer, Jr. (“Father”), who never
married, are the biological parents of H-L.F. (born in 2014), A.Y.F. (born in
2016), and A.Z.F. (born in 2016) (collectively “the children”). The trial court
initially granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to Mother;
however, on February 25, 2022, Paternal Grandparents filed a complaint in
custody/petition to intervene seeking partial physical custody pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2).1
By order entered on June 22, 2022, the trial court granted Paternal
Grandparents’ petition to intervene and directed them to file an amended
custody complaint, which they did on June 24, 2022. On July 26, 2022, the
trial court filed an interim order granting sole legal custody and primary
physical custody of the children to Mother; however, the order provided for
partial custody of the children to Paternal Grandparents.
On September 21, 2022, Paternal Grandparents filed a petition for
contempt against Mother averring she did not permit partial custody as
provided for under the July 26, 2022, custody order. By order entered on
____________________________________________
1 Therein, Paternal Grandparents asserted Father was incarcerated.
-2-
J-A23040-23
November 29, 2022, the trial court found Mother in contempt of the July 26,
2022, custody order. The trial court ordered Mother to pay Paternal
Grandparents’ attorney’s fees in connection with the contempt petition.
On January 4, 2023, Paternal Grandparents filed a second petition for
contempt against Mother averring she did not permit partial custody as
provided for under the July 26, 2022, custody order. Following a hearing, by
order entered on February 17, 2023, the trial court granted Paternal
Grandparents’ second petition for contempt. The trial court ordered Mother
to pay Paternal Grandparents’ attorney’s fees in connection with the second
contempt petition.
On Monday, March 20, 2023, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from
the February 17, 2023, contempt order,2 as well as a contemporaneous
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
____________________________________________
2 The February 17, 2023, order finding Mother to be in contempt and imposing
sanctions is a final appealable order. See Rhoades v. Price, 874 A.2d 148(Pa.Super. 2005) (en banc) (where the wife was ordered to pay the husband’s
counsel fees as a sanction for contempt the order was final and appealable).
Consequently, Mother had thirty days to file an appeal from the February 17,
2023, order. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Since the last day fell on Sunday, March
19, 2023, Mother’s notice of appeal regarding the contempt order was timely
filed on March 20, 2023. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (regarding the computation
of time).
To the extent Mother attempts to litigate the trial court’s November 29,
2022, contempt order, which imposed sanctions, we note Mother did not file
an appeal therefrom within thirty days, and accordingly, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to address issues related thereto. See Cheathem v. Temple
University Hospital, 743 A.2d 518 (Pa.Super. 1999).
-3-
J-A23040-23
1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The trial court filed a responsive opinion pursuant to
1925(a)(2)(ii).
Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.
2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter
may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:
[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d
1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant
must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. This Court may quash or
dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the
requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Id., Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(citations omitted).
Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates
that the brief of the appellant shall consist of the following matters, separately
and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of
review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the
discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.
-4-
J-A23040-23
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors
complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
(12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and
2135(d).
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Citing the above rules, this Court has explained that we “will not
consider the merits of an argument, which fails to cite relevant case or
statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver
of the claim on appeal.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209
(Pa.Super. 2012). See Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149(Pa.Super. 1982).
In the case sub judice, Mother has not attempted to structure her brief
to comply with the Rule 2111(a) requirements, thus hampering effective
appellate review. Sanford, supra. Specifically, her six-page brief, which is
in the format of a letter, merely sets forth a litany of facts presented in an
incoherent manner.
Aside from attaching a copy of the trial court’s February 17, 2023, order
and opinion, Mother’s brief contains none of the requirements set forth in Rule
2111(a), including no statement of jurisdiction, no statement of scope and
-5-
J-A23040-23
standard of review, no statement of questions involved, no statement of the
case, no summary of argument, no citations to the record or legal authority,
and no coherent, developed argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Further, she
has not attached a copy of her Rule 1925(b) statement to her brief.
As this Court has held:
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. The
Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly provide that an appeal may
be quashed “if the defects are in the brief…of the appellant and
are substantial[.]” Pa.R.App.P. 2101.
Sanford, 445 A.2d at 150-51 (citations omitted). See Commonwealth v.
Nachmenson, 540 MDA 2020, 2021 WL 225611 (Pa.Super. filed 1/22/21)
(unpublished memorandum) (quashing appeal where the defects in the pro se
brief were substantial and prevented meaningful review); K.B. v. D.A.P., 598
MDA 2021, 2021 WL 4739422 (Pa.Super. filed 10/12/21) (unpublished
memorandum) (quashing appeal where the pro se appellate brief failed to
raise or properly address any issues); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 1288
MDA 2020, 2021 WL 1743018, *2 (Pa.Super. filed 5/3/21) (unpublished
memorandum) (quashing appeal due to defective appellate brief and noting it
-6-
J-A23040-23
is not our duty to give pro se litigants a “do over” based on their lack of legal
knowledge).3
As in the cases cited supra, we find the defects in Mother’s brief are
substantial so as to preclude effective appellate review. We recognize that
Mother is proceeding pro se. However, we decline to become Mother’s
counsel. While we are willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se
litigant, “[a]ny layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding
must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise
and legal training will prove her undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685
A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa.Super. 1996) (citation omitted).
Based on the aforementioned, we quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Date: 10/11/2023
____________________________________________
3 We note that, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential
decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their
persuasive value. We find guidance in the unpublished memorandums cited
supra and find them to be persuasive in this matter.
-7-