J-S42020-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

KEVIN THOMAS HEALY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1260 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 12, 2023

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

No(s): CP-45-CR-0002720-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2024

I agree with the Majority’s decision to affirm the sentencing court’s 

order, but write separately because I find that the Commonwealth has waived 

any challenge to the order. The Commonwealth’s arguments in its brief are

so deficient that in order to engage in any meaningful appellate review of the 

Commonwealth’s challenge to the sentence, we must articulate the 

Commonwealth’s arguments and thus, act as counsel for the Commonwealth. 

This we cannot and should not do.

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 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “The Rules 

of Appellate Procedure [] state unequivocally that each question an appellant 

raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” 
J-S42020-23

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation 

omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing requirements for appellate 

briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate 

briefs). “When 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). 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). 

As this Court often states when reviewing deficient briefs, we “will not 

act as counsel” and “[w]e shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor 

shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” 

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007); Milby v. 

Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018). It is not the role of this Court 

to develop an appellant's argument where the brief provides mere cursory 

legal discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa.

2009).

Here, aside from quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9721(b) and 9760, summarily 

stating that the sentencing court must also consider the sentencing 

guidelines,” and citing one boilerplate case stating that sentencing is vested 

in the sound discretion of the sentence court, the Commonwealth’s 14-line 

argument fails to cite to the record, the sentencing guidelines, or provide any 

developed legal analysis. See Appellant’s Br. at 11-12. Further, the 
J-S42020-23

- 3 -

Commonwealth fails to identify the applicable mitigating and standard range

sentences or articulate any legal analysis to support its contention that the 

sentence was unreasonable. In addition, the Commonwealth fails to provide 

citation to the record or to any authority to support its bald contention that 

the sentencing court did not properly consider aggravating factors. 

Without this information or analysis, we cannot conduct meaningful 

appellate review of the Commonwealth’s challenge to the sentence and thus, 

I would find that the Commonwealth waived its challenge to it.