J-A01035-17

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

v.

MATTHEW J. FAITH,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

 

No. 920 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 24, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0002339-2015

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2017

Matthew Faith (Appellant) appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence of $1,200 in fines following his summary convictions for violations 

of three ordinances of the borough of West Homestead. We affirm.

As we write for the parties, an extensive retelling of the facts is 

unnecessary. Suffice it to say that Appellant owns rental property in West 

Homestead; received notice of violations of the borough’s property 

maintenance code; was convicted by the magisterial district judge; appealed 

for a de novo trial in the court of common pleas; was given opportunities to 

correct the violations, including a 90-day postponement by the trial court, 

but failed to do so; and ultimately was convicted of the violations with fines 

imposed. 
J-A01035-17

- 2 -

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and complied with the trial 

court’s directive to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Therein, Appellant stated the following:

A. The honorable trial court erred and abused it’s [sic] 

dis[c]retion by allowing the solicitor to mention that the 

condition of [Appellant’s] property has been ongoing. The 

honorable court should only consider the charges put 

b[e]fore it on this matter and not consider prior offences 

[sic] or any other prior matters[.]

B. The honorable court erred in ruling that at 236 West 9th 

Ave. West Homestead, PA 15120 there was a dangerous 

situation concerning a bowed[] retai[n]ing wall as 

described by the [Commonwealth’s] witness. The wall in 

question was repaired, no dangerous condition exists and 

the fine for this offence [sic] should be dismissed in 

entirety.

C. The honorable court erred in ruling that the property in 

question had not been worked on in a substan[t]ial matter 

as not only did [Appellant] need to get and hold a job for 

six (6) weeks to earn money to buy materials but the 

defendant is partially disabled having a herniated disc in 

his back and suffers from adult ADHD (attention deficit 

hyperten[s]ion disorder). [Appellant] made every effort at 

this time to comply with the Borough of West Homestead’s 

ordinances. He met twice with the [Commonwealth’s] 

witness and was informed that he would not be fined if he 

was “working with them” on this matter.

D. [Appellant] met with the borough’s witness, Shawn Jacobs 

the very day before the hearing and pointed out the work 

he had done since he had taken pictures and was told to 

take pictures of what he had accomplished to present at 

[the] hearing. Mr. Jacobs acted in an egregious and 

dastardly manner in not pointing out that he had witnessed 

a great deal of progress in [Appellant’s] making repairs to 

the front porch of the property located at 236 West Ninth 

Avenue, West Homestead, PA 15120 and other areas in 

and around the property.
J-A01035-17

- 3 -

E. All fines should be dismissed in this case as [Appellant] put 

forth a good faith effort to comply with the borough’s 

ordinances and doesn't have the means at this point in 

time to both repair the property and pay fines which serve 

no legit[i]mate purpose.

Concise Statement, 7/13/2016 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In this Court, Appellant presents the following seven questions:

1. Whether the [trial court] had made a fair and impartial 

ruling based on the facts presented at the May 24, 2016 

hearing. 

2. Whether [A]ppellant made a viable attempt at making the 

repairs and had informed Mr. Shawn Jacobs who is a 

subcontractor through Building Underwriters of Pa. Inc. of 

the extent of the pest damage caused by carpenter ants 

when he visited the property on the Friday prior to the May 

24, 2016 hearing and that there had to be additional work 

which would take more time.

3. Whether [A]ppellant ignored numerous contact[s] by the 

Borough regarding the inspection of the properties in 

question. 

4. Whether the Commonwealth provided accurate pictures 

depicting the work done on the property prior to the 

hearing on May 24, 2016.

5. Whether the Opinion provided by the Honorable Judge 

Thomas E. [Flaherty] claiming that [] Appellant only 

worked on the property on the Friday[,] Sunday and 

Monday is accurate. [] Appellant worked on the property 

removing debris which had accumulated for years due to a 

series of mishaps which were unavoidable, for weeks prior 

to the hearing. There was no way for [] Appellant to know 

that carpenter ants existed on the aforementioned 

property prior to removal of the worn out shingles.

6. Whether the court infringed on [A]ppellant[’]s right to due 

process. 
J-A01035-17

- 4 -

7. That Shawn Jacobs’s claim when he allegedly stated in the 

Honorable Judge Thomas E. Flaherty’s Opinion filed August 

23, 2016 is false when pertaining his statement that none 

of the violations had been addressed[.]

Appellant’s Brief at 2-3 (suggested answers omitted).

From the above it is clear that Appellant has waived numbers 1, 3, 4, 

and 6 of his questions presented on appeal by failing to include them in his 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. Commonwealth v. Rolan, 

964 A.2d 398, 409 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Where the trial court orders an 

Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal 

under Pa.R.A.P. 1925, any issue not contained in that statement is waived 

on appeal.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 

Appellant’s questions 2, 5, and 7 fall within paragraphs C, D, and E of 

his 1925(b) statement, and thus were preserved for our consideration. We 

address those issues mindful of our standard of review.

Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction 

heard de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of 

whether an error of law has been committed and whether the 

findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. The 

adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a manifest abuse of discretion. 

Commonwealth v. Reigel, 75 A.3d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249, 251 (Pa. Super. 

2002)). Further, “[a]n appellant [] has the burden to convince us that there 
J-A01035-17

- 5 -

were errors and that relief is due because of those errors.” 

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 722 (Pa. Super. 2007).

With his preserved issues, Appellant suggests that he should not have 

been fined because he tried his best to fix up the property before the 

resumption of his trial, and the Commonwealth’s witness failed to 

acknowledge that fact. Yet his brief contains the following summary of the 

argument, most of which has nothing to do with those issues or even any of 

the other questions we have deemed to be waived.

Appellant argues that he did everything possible to comply with 

the Borough of West Homestead’s Ordinances regarding the 

overall condition of property. Appellant further states that the 

Borough has put him in jeopardy by allowing the sewage 

company to turn off the water at 242 West 9th Ave. West 

Homestead, Pa without ever offering a payment arrangement. 

This has caused undue hardship as the property was before the 

Borough’s harassing action a viable rental property. 

Furthermore the Borough’s own property located at the corner of 

9th Ave. and Hays [S]treet has walls which are falling or have 

fallen caused dangerous conditions which pose a hazard[] to 

anyone walking either on 9th Ave. or Hays Street.

The Appellant[’]s property poses no dangerous condition to the 

public and is in relatively good condition.

The Appellant has made a good faith effort and continues to 

make repairs [to] the property.

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

That is the full extent of Appellant’s argument. His brief contains no 

separate argument section as mandated by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8), let alone 

one divided into as many parts as there are questions involved as provided 
J-A01035-17

- 6 -

by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The brief further is devoid of citations to the record or 

to any legal authority as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b). Not only 

has Appellant failed to explain how his alleged good-faith efforts would serve 

to preclude his convictions, he has not even informed this Court of the 

elements of the West Homestead ordinances which he was alleged to have 

violated. 

Although we are willing to construe liberally the filings of a pro se

party, the lack of legal training does not entitle a pro se litigant to special 

advantage. Rich v. Acrivos, 815 A.2d 1106, 1108 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs in 

conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of 

the particular case will permit. Rules 2111 and 2114 through 

2119 detail the specific requirements relevant to the brief of an 

appellant. Of particular importance is the provision of Rule 

2119(a) that a brief must contain a developed argument 

augmented by citation to pertinent authorities. Arguments not 

appropriately developed are waived. It is not the duty of the 

Superior Court to act as an appellant’s counsel, and it is an 

appellant’s responsibility to establish both the purported errors 

and any entitlement to relief therefrom.

Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations 

omitted). 

This Court will not do Appellant’s research or make his arguments for 

him. We hold that Appellant’s questions 2, 5, and 7 are waived. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009) (“Appellant’s 

single-sentence ‘arguments’ for issues three and four fail to provide any 
J-A01035-17

- 7 -

discussion of his claims; fail to provide any reasoned development 

whatsoever of why the challenged testimony was, in his view, ‘unduly 

prejudicial;’ and fail to include any citation to any authority. We have 

absolutely no idea what Appellant is arguing in issues three and four. As we 

will not develop Appellant’s arguments for him, these issues are not 

reviewable. We hold that issues three and four are waived, and accordingly 

provide no basis upon which to grant Appellant relief.” (emphasis omitted)).

Thus, we conclude that, between the failure to raise his appellate 

questions in his 1925(b) statement and his severely deficient brief, Appellant 

has waived all of his appellate claims.1

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2017

 

1 Our review of the record and the trial court’s opinion evidences no error of 

law or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/24/2016, at 1-3 (unnumbered). Therefore, we would see no 

reason to disturb the trial court’s findings even if Appellant had preserved a 

challenge to his convictions.