J

- A15029

- 18

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JASON LEE BROWN

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 59 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 11, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 54

- CR

- 0000979

- 2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.: FILED J UNE 11, 2018

Jason Lee Brown (Appellant) appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence impos ed after a jury convicted him of two counts of harassment 1 of

his estranged wife , 2 and sentenced him to an aggregate 12 months of

probation. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709(a)( 2 ) and (7)

.

2 The trial court explained that Appellant “ has followed her, repeatedly engaged in a course of conduct which serves no legitimate purpose, [and]

co mmunicated lewd threatening words at extremely inconvenient hours all of which constitute the crime of H arassment. ” Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/18, at 3. The trial court state d that a t sentencing , Appellant “ complained again about the C ustody situation and asked the C ourt to dismiss the charges which request the C ourt D enied. ” Id.J

- A15029

- 18

- 2

-

In his brief , Appellant has failed to present a cogent legal argument

. Appellant states his issue as follows:

The courts of common pleas of Schuykill County have placed child custody order’s in our lives, [y] et when [Appellant] tries to [] be involved with [ his wife ], in matters of well

- being of the child, she creates a hostile [e] nvironment, and calls the police on [Appellant], ending in the results of what is brought before t he Superior [] Court. I understand this is not a child custody case, but it is the foundation [upon which] the charges are fabricated [u] pon. Appellant’s Brief at 2. In the succeeding five pages, Appellant sets forth a
rambling discourse detailing his relationship with his estranged wife and the
couple’s conflicts concerning their minor child. Appellant fails to engage in

any legal analysis and his brief contains no citation to legal authority . The
final page of Appellant’s brief contains a “Summary o f the Argument” which

reads:

I had no intent to [h] a rass, annoy, cause alarm, or di stress [ my wife ], nor did I follow her with intent to [] do what they are trying to [] make me out to look like. . . . [My daughter] gets used as a p [aw] n against me, I stat ed that in a [n] earlier trial for custody

.

. . . The custody order states we can make other arrangements between ourselves, and that we are supposed [to] discuss matters of the child directly. This is all just part of them trying to [] diminish our relati onship, and det [e] r us from having a healthy relationship.

Id. at 8.

In sum , Appellant’s brief is simply a personal narrative which fails to

conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2111, 2118, 21 19

. Although Appellant is pro se , his

status does not relieve him of his duty to properly raise and develop anJ

- A15029

- 18

- 3

-

appealable claim

. Smathers v. Smathers , 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super.

1996). This Court has stated:

[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records 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 Pennsy lvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a le gal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.

In re Ullman , 995 A.2d 1207 , 1211

- 12 12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations

omitted), appeal denied , 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011)

. Based on the forego ing , we dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the June 20 , 2018 argument list.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/11/2018J

- A15029

- 18

- 4

-