J

- S01032

- 20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 S.C. Appellee

v. S.P.H. Appellant : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2286 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Ente red July 18, 2019 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): No. OC1707209 BE FORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J. * MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 24, 2020
S.P.H. (Fa ther) appeals from the order entered Ju ly 18, 2019, which awarded both sole legal and physical custody of his son L.H. , who was born in September 2013, to L.H.’s mother, S.C. (Mother). Due to deficiencies in Father’s brief, we dismiss this appeal. Mother and L.H. reside in Philadelphia , and Father is incarcerated hours away at SCI Huntingdon

. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 6. According to the trial c ourt, Father has never met L.H. due to Father’s incarceration prior to L.H.’s birth for third

- degree murder, aggravated assault, posses sion of prohibited firearms, and carrying firearms in public. Id. at 1 n.1, 6.

_________________ _ _________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S01032

- 20

- 2

-

Although neither petition appears in the certified record, the docket indicates that Mother and Father had cross - filed pro se custody petitions in early 201 8 , each seeking so me form of custody of L.H. In 201 8 , a custody
master conducted a hearing, and an interim order was entered awarding Mother primary physical and sole legal custody of L.H. pending the next hearing. Following a hearing in July 2019 before the trial court, a final order was entered awarding Mother sole physical custody and sole legal custody of L.H. Order, 7/18/2019, at 1. According to the trial court, Mother appeared in person at the hearings , and Father testified by telephone from the state correctional institute where he is serving his 371⁄2 to 75 year prison
sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 1

- 2, 11. Father pro se filed timely a notice of appeal from the July 18, 2019 custody order

. The trial court ordered Father to file a concise stateme nt of errors complained of on appeal, and Father complied. 1

_________________ _ _________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Although Father failed to file his concise statement alongside his notice of appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) for children’s fast track cases, w e have accepted Father ’s concise statement pursuant to In re K.T.E.L. , 983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that the appellant’s failure to comply strictly w ith Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did not warrant waiver of her claims, as there was no prejudice to any party). By the trial court’s assessment, Father has waived two out of the three issues he presented in his concise statement by stating the issues in terms that are too vague to determine the specific error at issue. Trial Co urt Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 5

- 6. We are unable to make our own determination because Father did not include his concise statement with his brief as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11), and the concise statement was not forwarded to this Court as part of the certified record. Nevertheless, because we ultimately dismiss (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S01032

- 20

- 3

-

Upon review of Father’s brief, we determine that Father’s noncompliance with our rules of procedure forecloses any possibility of meaningful appellate review. “ [A]lthough this Court is willing t o 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 se t 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 must, to some reasonable e xtent, 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. Unemployment Comp . Bd. of Review , 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985)). Father’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as requir ed by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). His brief also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2) (requiring a separate section fo r the order in question); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5) (requiring a separate statement of the case); Pa.R.A.P. (Footnote Continued)

_____________ __ ________ Father’s entire appeal based on the deficiencies in his brief , we need not address waiver on this basis.J

- S01032

- 20

- 4

-

2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) (requiring an argument section). Although the brief contains some citations to the record and legal authority as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119, in context, the citations are largely unhelpful. This is because Appellant’ s brief reproduce s verbatim almost all of the text from this Court’s decision in S.T.
v. R.W. , 192 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Super. 2018), and periodically intermingles facts and analysis from his own case without clearly distinguishing as such. As a whole, particularly without a clear statement of ques tions presented as requir ed by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) and separate sections analyzing any such questions , Appellant’s brief is jumbled and difficult to follow , and the issues he presents to this Court are not clear

. Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant’s utter disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left this Court without the ability to conduct effective 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”). Based on the foregoing , we dismiss this appeal without consideration of the merits of Appellant’s complaints. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of th e appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be ... dismissed.”). Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished

.J

- S01032

- 20

- 5

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/24/20