Court Opinion

ID: 9376385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 17:08:25.519302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.549521
License: Public Domain

J-A04027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 JAMIE L. WHITE A/K/A JAMIE L.           :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 BESTWICK                                :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
                v.                       :
                                         :
                                         :
 ERIK S. GAUGER,                         :
                                         :    No. 1143 MDA 2022
                     Appellant           :

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 14, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):
                                07-14088

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:             FILED: MARCH 2, 2023

         Appellant Erik S. Gauger (“Father”) appeals pro se from the Order

entered by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas directing that Father and

Jamie Bestwick, f/k/a Jamie White (“Mother”), continue to share legal and

physical custody of their Child born in 2007. Upon review, we dismiss.

         A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition. Due to substantial defects in Father’s pro se brief, we are unable

to provide meaningful review of any of the fourteen issues he purports to

raise.

         “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each

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

pertinent authority.”   Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111
J-A04027-23

(listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing

argument requirements for appellate briefs). “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.”

Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super.

2006) (citation omitted).

      Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,

this does not entitle a pro se litigant to any advantage based on his lack of

legal training. Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020).

An appellant’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to follow

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206,

213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008). Ultimately, any person who represents himself

“in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that

his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.” Satiro, 237

A.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will

not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane,

10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). It is not the role of

this Court to develop an appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere

cursory legal discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925

(Pa. 2009). The failure to comport with our briefing requirements may result

in dismissal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

      Father’s brief fails to comply with our rules of appellate procedure and

the substantial defects fatally hamper our ability to provide meaningful review.

                                      -2-
J-A04027-23

In his 34-page, single-spaced “brief,”1 Father provides a 23-page “Statement

of the Case,” which contains details of the procedural odyssey of this case

interspersed with self-serving commentary about his actions and Mother’s

alleged inactions from 2017 to 2022. See Father’s Br. at 8-31. This statement

is neither brief nor closely condensed to assist in focusing on the issues

Appellant purports to raise. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117 (requiring a brief statement

and a closely condensed chronological statement). While such a statement

alone does not necessarily render this appeal unreviewable, it does present a

serious impediment to our review.

        Most significantly, however, despite having raised fourteen questions for

our review, Father has failed to address each issue as required by Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a). Section 2119 provides, inter alia, that each issue raised should be

addressed in the argument section under its own heading with discussion of

relevant law as it pertains to the issues raised in the appeal. Father has utterly

failed to do this.    Instead, he has provided four short paragraphs with no

headings, no citations to the record, and no analysis of the facts and law as

they relate to the issues he has raised and the cases he cites in his “Argument”

section.    See id., at 32-33.2      In “Conclusion,” Father complains about the

____________________________________________

1   See Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(3) (requiring briefs to be double-spaced).

2The copy of the record provided to this Court is comprised of approximately
3700 pages. We acknowledge that Appellant included some citations to
documents in the record in his “Statement of the Case.”

                                           -3-
J-A04027-23

guardian ad litem and accuses the trial court of acting impartially because the

court found the guardian ad litem’s testimony and report to be credible.

       As a result of the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we are unable

to provide meaningful review of the issues he purports to raise. Accordingly,

we find Appellant’s issues waived and dismiss this appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.3, 4

       Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/02/2023

____________________________________________

3 To the extent Appellant raises a weight claim in his “conclusion,” we reiterate
that “with regard to the credibility and weight of the evidence, we must defer
to the presiding trial judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-
hand.” C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).

4We further note that we reviewed the trial court’s July 13, 2022 Decision and
Order and conclude that the court thoroughly considered the evidence
presented at the custody hearing, including Mother’s positive test for THC, and
addressed the sixteen custody factors set forth in Section 5328 fairly and
impartially. We, thus, conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion
directing that Mother and Father to continue to share legal custody and
physical custody on an equal basis.

                                           -4-