J-S39020-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYRONE MARTIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 386 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 14, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-31-CR-0000581-2015

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2018

Tyrone Martin (Appellant) appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after the trial court convicted him of two counts of summary 

harassment of corrections officers and sentenced him to pay a fine at each 

count.

1

 Upon review, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 

(appeal may be dismissed where defects of the appellant’s brief are 

substantial).

Appellant’s brief is comprised of three handwritten pages and is largely 

nonsensical. We are unable to discern the issue or issues that Appellant 

wishes this Court to review because he has failed to include a statement of 

questions involved. The omission of a statement of questions involved is 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1); Appellant is incarcerated at SCI Forest, where 

he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. 
J-S39020-18

- 2 -

“particularly grievous since the statement . . . defines the specific issues this 

court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1015-

16 (Pa. Super. 1993). “When the omission of the statement of questions 

[involved] is combined with the lack of any organized and developed 

arguments, it 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).

Additionally, Appellant’s brief fails to adhere to our Rules of Appellate 

Procedure in virtually all other respects. 

[A]ppellate briefs. . . must materially conform to the requirements 

of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court may 

quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the 

requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted), 

appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). Rule 2111(a) mandates that an 

appellant’s brief 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.
J-S39020-18

- 3 -

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge 

the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.

(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 the 

matters 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.

(12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 

2135(d).

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (emphasis added).

Appellant’s brief does not contain any of the sections mandated by Rule 

2111(a). Moreover, Appellant fails to include citations to legal authority and 

record citations. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring that an appellant develop 

an argument with citation to and analysis of relevant legal authority). Based 

upon these substantial deficiencies, we dismiss the appeal.

2

____________________________________________

2 Although Appellant is proceeding pro se in this appeal, he must still comply 

with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jones v. Rudenstein, 

585 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citing Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 

806, 834 n.46 (1975)). Appellant’s pro se representation does not relieve him 

of his duty to properly raise and develop appealable claims. Smathers, 670 

A.2d at 1160. We have explained:

[A]ny 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.
J-S39020-18

- 4 -

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/20/2018

____________________________________________

Kovalev v. Sowell, 839 A.2d 359, 367 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation, 

quotation marks and brackets omitted).