J-S55001-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DIANESE CONNOR

v.

COREY L. HARRIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 643 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered June 11, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at 

No(s): NS201001541

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: APRIL 9, 2021

Corey L. Harris (“Father”) appeals pro se from the order that ratified an 

interim child support order that denied his motion to modify his monthly child 

support obligation of $457.71 plus $45.00 arrears for his daughter. We affirm.

On September 2010, Dianese Conner (“Mother”) filed a complaint for 

support in relation to the child, who was born in August 2010. For several 

years, Father had no child support obligation because he was deemed to have 

zero earning capacity. However, as of the time of the petition that is the 

genesis of this appeal, Father’s monthly child support obligation was 

determined to be $457.71, based upon his net monthly oncome of $1,990.57. 

On June 29, 2020, Father filed a petition for modification, alleging a loss of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S55001-20

- 2 -

income and complaining that Mother does not permit him to contact his 

daughter. Following an evidentiary hearing before a conference officer, the 

trial court entered an interim order denying Father’s motion for modification. 

Father filed a timely request for a de novo hearing, and following argument 

on June 9, 2020, the trial court entered the above-referenced order adopting 

the interim order denying Father’s petition for modification. 

This timely appeal followed. The trial court did not order Father to file 

a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925. 

At the outset, we note that Father has waived all appellate issues due 

to the deficiencies in his appellate brief. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), 

The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise prescribed by these 

rules, 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.

(8) Argument for appellant.
J-S55001-20

- 3 -

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions (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 Rule 

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.

Pa.R.A.P. 2111. 

Father’s brief is wholly deficient insofar as he does not include any of 

the requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and he makes nonsensical

allegations concerning, inter alia, gender discrimination, kickback schemes, 

illegal conspiracies, and civil rights violations by the trial court, whom Father 

asserts illegally represented the plaintiff. See Father’s brief at 1-3. As the 

substantial deficiencies in Father’s brief prevent meaningful appellate review, 

the appeal is subject to being quashed or dismissed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant 

and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or 

dismissed.”).

Critically, however, Father’s brief also lacks any distinct legal argument, 

citation to authorities, or references to the record pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a)-(c). As we previously explained, “where an appellate brief fails to 

provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to 

develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review that claim 

is waived.” In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330, 339 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2011). Accordingly, 
J-S55001-20

- 4 -

to the extent that we can fashion a lucid claim from Father’s brief, that 

contention is waived. 

Although we recognize that Father is proceeding pro se in this matter, 

his status as a pro se litigant does not alter our determination or relieve him 

of his responsibility to properly raise and develop appealable claims. As we 

reiterated in Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996)

(cleaned up),

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 he lacks legal training. As our 

Supreme Court has explained, any layperson choosing to 

represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable 

extent, assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training 

will prove his undoing.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude Father has waived 

all issues on appeal. As Father failed to establish any basis to disturb the child 

support order, no relief is due.

Order affirmed.

Judge Colins joins the memorandum.

Judge McCaffery concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/9/2021