J. S 21 0 42 /1 8

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA v. : : CHRISTINA REGES , : No. 1776 W DA 20 17 : Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, August 15 , 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No. CP

- 02

- SA

- 0001030

- 2017

BEFORE: OLSON , J., MURRAY , J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2018 Christina Reges appeal s pro se from the August 15 , 2017 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County after the trial court dismissed her summary appeal with respect to her conviction for driving without a license 1 due to appellant’s failure to appear at the summary appeal hearing and imposed a $200 fine, plus costs

. We affirm. The certified record before us r eflects that on April 27, 2017, a magisterial district j udge found appellant guilty of driving without a license. The trial court then granted a ppellant’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis on summary appeal. The reafter, the trial court dismissed
appe llant’s summary appeal due to appellant’s failure to appear at the

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501(a).J. S 21 0 42 /1 8

- 2

-

August 15, 2017 summary appeal hearing and imposed a $200 fine , plus
costs. On November 14, 2017, appellant filed a pro se petition to appeal nunc pro tunc wherein she stated that her appeal was not timely filed because she “work[s] late night plus moveing [sic]” and that she “didn’t know about this fileing [sic] intell [sic] a office [sic] told me to come down and file.” (Appellant’s petition to file appeal nunc pro tunc , 11/14/17.) On November 16, 2017, the trial court granted appellant’s petition to appeal nunc pro tunc

. On November 28, 2017, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal to this court. On December 6, 20 17, this court entered an order granti ng appellant ’ s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. The trial court did not order appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on
app eal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b ). The t rial court did, however, file a short opinion stating tha t it entered judgment of sentence against appellant after it dismissed her summary appeal due to appellant’s failure to appear at the summary appeal hearing and further noted that appellant “did not contact the [c]ourt in any manner, on the day of her sche duled trial.” (Trial court opinion, 12/11/17.)
A t the outset, we note that a ppellant’s brief to this court does not conform in all material respects with the requirements of Chapter 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. Although appellant’s brief cont ains aJ. S 21 0 42 /1 8

- 3

-

statement of jurisdiction, the statement merely states that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal because it “emanates from a final order.” (Appellant’s brief at unnumbered page 2.) Appellant’s brief also contains a section titled “orders i n question,” but that section fails to set forth the order on appeal. Appellant’s brief fails to include a statement of both the scope and standard of review. Appellant’s brief does include a section titled “statement of the case,” which section merely s tates that appellant “got a petition to file appeal nunc pro [sic]” to this court. Appellant’s summary of the argument contains three sentences in which appellant summarize s her responsibilities as a single mother of two children

. ( Id. ) In her

one - and

- one - half page argument, appellant again sets forth her responsibilities as a single mother and further stat es that appellant “needs to have the ability to drive as a mother who takes her children everywhere whether its [sic] school or after school activiti es.” ( Id. at unnumbered
page 3.) Finally, i n her short conclusion, appellant requests that this court “carefully review my request under my circumstances considering granting renewal of my divers [sic] license as stated in Argument 1501.” (Appellant’s b rief at unnumbered page 4.) It is well settled that “w here 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
wai ved.” Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)J. S 21 0 42 /1 8

- 4

-

(citations omitted). Consequently , appellant waives her claims on appeal. Even if not waived, however, we note that Section 1501(a) provides that “[n] o person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway or public property in this Commonwealth unless the person has a driver’s license valid under the provisions of this chapter. ”
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501(a). The statute further provides that :

No person charged with violating [ Section 1501(a)] shall be convicted if the person produces at the office of the issuing authority within 15 days of the violation: (1) a driver’s license valid in this Commonwealth at the time of the violation; or (2) if the driver’s license is lost, stolen, destroyed or illegible, evidence that the driver was licensed at the time of the violation. Pa.C.S.A. § 1701(d). Here, nothing in the certified record demonstrates that appellant produced a valid driver’s license or evidence that she was license d at the time of the violation within 15 days of that violation. Indeed, appellant has not and does not contend that she possessed a valid driver’s license on the date on which she committed her summary offense

. As such , the magisterial district judge pr operly convicted appellant of driving without a license , and the trial court properly dismissed her summary appeal of that
conviction when she failed to appear

. Therefore , eve n if appellant did notJ. S 21 0 42 /1 8

- 5

-

waive her issues on appeal for failing to submit a brief capable of meaningful appella te review, no relief would be due. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/22/2018