Court Opinion

ID: 9379109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 18:06:43.101749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.670322
License: Public Domain

J-S07003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 MIJA HYON                               :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 YOUN O. WHANG                           :
                                         :
                    Appellant            :    No. 2162 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at
                          No(s): 2022-004888

JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM, J.:                      FILED MARCH 14, 2023

      Appellant, Youn O. Whang, appeals pro se from the July 21, 2022 order

entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denying her Petition

for Leave to Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc. We dismiss this appeal.

      The pro se brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to

conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy.         In her Brief,

Appellant has not made any effort to comply with any of the requirements of

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (listing the items that an appellant

must include in her appellate brief).

      Most notably, Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions

involved, a statement of the case, or any argument section in which Appellant

has articulated the trial court’s alleged error, and her Brief is devoid of any

citation to case law or to the record. Instead, Appellant’s more than 100-page

brief consists of rantings against, among other things, “fake” judges and the
J-S07003-23

Coronavirus, references to prior legal proceedings in Philadelphia County and

the federal bankruptcy courts, and attachments of orders and docket sheets

from those proceedings.

      “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of

pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super.

2003) (citations omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing

argument requirements for appellate briefs). Furthermore, “[w]hen 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). See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining

that substantial briefing defects may result in dismissal of appeal).

      “While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro

se litigant, we note that [an] appellant is not entitled to any particular

advantage because she lacks legal training.” Branch Banking and Trust,

904 A.2d at 942 (citation omitted). “As our [S]upreme [C]ourt 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.” Id. (citation omitted).

      In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief

cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Because of the brief’s substantial

defects, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of the

                                      -2-
J-S07003-23

Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s order denying nunc pro tunc appellate

relief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

      Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/14/2023

                                     -3-