J-A27030-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

IRENE F. MILLER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 770 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered May 2, 2017

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

No(s): CP-02-SA-0000317-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 5, 2018

Appellant, Irene F. Miller, appeals pro se from the order imposed in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on May 2, 2017, following her 

conviction of a motor vehicle offense. After diligently attempting review, we 

quash her appeal.

The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as 

follows:

On May 2, 2017, following a de novo hearing, this [c]ourt 

adjudicated [Appellant] guilty of violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3308,[1]

____________________________________________

1 Section 3308(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code defines this violation as follows: 

“Driving on one-way roadway.--Upon a roadway designated for one-way 

traffic, a vehicle shall be driven only in the direction designated at all or such 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A27030-17

- 2 -

one-way roadways, and imposed a fine of $25.00, plus costs. 

On May 26, 2017, [Appellant] filed an appeal to the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania.[2] On May 31, 2017, this [c]ourt 

[o]rdered [Appellant] to file a 1925(b) Statement within 21 

days, which was timely filed on June 9, 2017.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/20/17, at 1. The trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 

opinion on June 20, 2017.

Appellant has filed an untitled pleading with this Court that consists of 

a compilation of various documents, including a list of docket entries, the 

trial court opinion, a list of vehicle code provisions, a page from what 

appears to be an unidentified textbook, a course completion certificate from 

“The AAA Driver Improvement Program,” and various photographs with 

hand-written notes. Also included in this filing is a two-page “Statement of 

Facts” that appears to have been prepared by Appellant. For lack of a better 

term, and for ease of reference, we shall refer to this filing as “Appellant’s 

Brief.” Despite this reference, we are compelled to address the significant 

deficiencies of this filing.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

times as shall be indicated by official traffic-control devices.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 

3308(b).

2

 Appellant petitioned the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal, and the trial court granted that request by order entered February 

21, 2017. Although Appellant was granted permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis, she was not entitled to counsel on appeal. “[T]here is no right to 

counsel where the only sentence provided for in a summary violation is a 

fine and costs.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Pa. 

Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Long, 688 A.2d 198, 201 (Pa. 

Super. 1996)).
J-A27030-17

- 3 -

Our rules of appellate procedure provide that where the defects in a 

brief are so substantial as to preclude meaningful judicial review, the appeal 

may be quashed or dismissed. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Herein, Appellant’s brief fails 

to comply with any of the requirements outlined in Pa.R.A.P. 2111. The 

purported brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction; statement of the scope and 

standard of review; statement of the questions involved; statement of the 

case; summary of argument; and argument section. Pa.R.A.P. 2111.

Moreover, to the extent that Appellant attempts to level any 

arguments in her “statement of facts”, those arguments are undeveloped and

incomplete. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), “[t]he argument shall be divided 

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued ... followed by such 

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Appellant 

fails to develop any argument with citation to the record or pertinent 

authority, and the statement contains nothing more than a list of facts 

presented in the light most favorable to her. Because Appellant’s brief 

flagrantly ignores the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are 

unable to clearly define her exact point of controversy. While the trial court 

surmised that Appellant was challenging the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting her conviction, we decline to engage in such speculation. 

Appellant has failed to provide us with a proper brief, and therefore, we are 

unable to conduct meaningful appellate review.
J-A27030-17

- 4 -

We acknowledge that Appellant has filed this brief pro se, but have 

stated the following in such circumstances:

While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by 

a pro se litigant, we note that [a]ppellant is not entitled to any 

particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our 

Supreme Court has explained, any layperson choosing to 

represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable 

extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal 

training will prove her undoing. Consequently, we decline to 

become the appellant’s counsel. 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.

Commonwealth v. Greenwalt, 796 A.2d 996, 997 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because the defects in 

Appellant’s brief are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any 

meaningful appellate review, we quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/5/2018