Gabel, M. v. Johnson, P.

J-A04021-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MELISSA GABEL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
PAUL JOHNSON :
:
Appellant : No. 850 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Civil Division at
No(s): FC-2017-21461-AB
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 1, 2023
Appellant, Paul Johnson, appeals from the April 20, 2022 order entered
in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas amending and extending a
protection from abuse order. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.
A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our
disposition. Appellant’s pro se Brief fails to comply with the briefing
requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable
to conduct meaningful appellate review.
Appellate briefs must materially conform 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.
Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In
particular, “[w]hen the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is
combined with the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it
J-A04021-23
becomes clear that appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct
meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160
(Pa. Super. 1996). “[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). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his
lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Adams, 882 A.2d at
498.
It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be
developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P
2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and
developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate
procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as
counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).
“We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the
record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d
1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Here, in his five-page brief, Appellant fails to include a statement of
jurisdiction, the text of the order or other determination in question, a
statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions
involved, a statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6). Appellant has also failed to append a copy of his
-2-
J-A04021-23
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement to the brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d). The
omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly grievous since
the statement of questions involved defines the specific issues this Court is
asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa.
Super. 1993).
Instead, Appellant has divided his Brief into four numbered sections in
each of which he responds to one of four points addressed by the trial court
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, and in those sections, Appellant cites once to
undated notes of testimony and to one United States Supreme Court case for
the proposition that courts must liberally construe pro se filings. See
Appellant’s Brief at 4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a) (requiring discussion and
citation of authorities that are deemed pertinent to an appellant’s argument).
These substantial omissions preclude meaningful appellate review.
Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss Appellant’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list.1
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 02/01/2023
____________________________________________
1In light of our disposition, we deny as moot the request of Appellee, Melissa
Gabel, to be excused from argument.
-3-
J-A04021-23
-4-