Com. v. Morton, L.

J-A12017-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LADONNA M. MORTON :
:
Appellant : No. 574 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-SA-0000234-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 8, 2019
Appellant, Ladonna M. Morton, appeals pro se from the April 18, 2018
Judgment of Sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas following her conviction of Disorderly Conduct, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1).
We dismiss this appeal.
The pro se Brief Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to conform
to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s Brief does not
include: (1) the text of the order in question; (2) statements of the scope and
standard of review; and (3) a copy of her Rule 1925(b) Statement. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s Brief contains only
one sentence and is devoid of any citation to case law or to the record. See
Appellant’s Brief at 7. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally
that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and
J-A12017-19
analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319
(Pa. Super. 2003). Furthermore, “[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.” Branch
Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citation omitted).
“While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has explained, any
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.” Id. at 942 (citation omitted). In the present case,
even a liberal construction of Appellant’s Brief cannot remedy the serious
inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal due to the substantial
briefing defects in Appellant’s Brief, which hampered our ability to conduct
meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2019
-2-