Court Opinion

ID: 9914227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 20:08:58.355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:39.432495
License: Public Domain

J-S36017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 SIMONE T. ROY                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 JOHN C. ROY                               :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 966 EDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered March 22, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic
                      Relations at No(s): DR-0037520

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.:                    FILED DECEMBER 29, 2023

      Appellant John C. Roy appeals pro se from the order finding him in civil

contempt for failing to comply with a support order. Appellant argues that the

trial court erred in concluding that Appellant willfully violated the court’s

support order and setting a purge amount that Appellant did not have the

present ability to pay.   We affirm.

      The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this matter as follows:

      On February 10, 2023, the Northampton County Domestic
      Relations Section (“DRS”) filed a petition for contempt alleging
      that [Appellant] had failed to comply with the order for support in
      this matter, and that arrearages under the order totaled
      $28,191.10 as of the date of filing. [Appellant] was ordered to
      appear at a non-compliance court hearing scheduled for March 14,
      2023.

      On March 14, 2023, following a hearing, the undersigned entered
      an order of court finding [Appellant] in contempt of court for failing
      to comply with the support order in this matter, sentencing
      [Appellant] to serve six (6) months in Northampton County prison,
      granting [Appellant] immediate eligibility for work release, and
J-S36017-23

      granting [Appellant] the ability to purge the sentence upon a lump
      sum payment of $2,500.00 or following four (4) months on the
      work release program with regular support payments being made.
      [The following day, the trial court issued an order stating that
      Appellant was purged of the contempt charge and could be
      released from prison. See Trial Ct. Order, 3/15/23]

      On April 11, 2022, [Appellant] timely filed a notice of appeal to
      the Superior Court from the order entered on March 14, 2023 in
      the instant matter. On April 12, 2023, we entered an order
      directing Appellant to file a “statement of errors complained of on
      appeal” pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. [] 1925 within twenty-one (21)
      days, which order specifically noted to be May 3, 2023. Our April
      12, 2023 order specifically notes as follows:

         Any issue not properly included in the statement timely filed
         and served pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) shall be deemed
         waived.     Unless Appellant has fully complied with the
         directives herein, the court may be unable to provide the
         Superior Court with the required complete 1925(a)
         statement in support of the judgment appealed from, and
         will order the [DRS] to submit the record, noting any non-
         compliance by Appellant and/or may submit a [Rule]
         1925(a) statement suggesting that the appeal should be
         denied as a result of Appellant’s failure to comply with this
         order.

      Appellant failed to file a statement of errors complained of on
      appeal by the May 3, 2023 deadline. To date, no statement of
      errors complained of on appeal identifying any alleged legal errors
      with our March 14, 2023 order has been received by [Appellant].

Trial Ct. Op., 5/25/23, at 1-2 (citations omitted).

      Initially, it is well settled that “in order to preserve their claims for

appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders

them to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P.1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement will be

deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005)

(formatting altered, citation omitted).

                                     -2-
J-S36017-23

       This Court has explained that

       although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed
       by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
       benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must
       comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania
       Rules of the Court. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if
       an appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in
       the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003)

(citations omitted).

       Here, as noted previously, Appellant did not comply with the trial court’s

order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.          Therefore, Appellant has failed to

preserve any claims for review.1 See Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780. Accordingly,

we affirm.2

____________________________________________

1 We note that, in addition to Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 1925(b),

Appellant also failed to adhere to the rules concerning appellate briefs. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(12) (setting forth the basic requirements for an
appellate brief). Indeed, Appellant’s six-page brief is limited to three sections
which are labeled “procedural history,” “discussion,” and “conclusion.” See
Appellant’s Brief at 1-6. Appellant’s brief does not include the required
sections such as a statement of questions, statement of scope and standard
of review, an argument section, or any discussion of or citations to relevant
legal authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Therefore, even if Appellant had
filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, we would find Appellant’s claims waived based
on his defective brief. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924
(Pa. 2009) (stating that “where 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
waived”).

2 See Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs,

Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 227 (Pa. Super. 2014) (affirming the trial court’s order
where the appellant failed to preserve issues in a Rule 1925(b) statement).

                                           -3-
J-S36017-23

     Order affirmed.

Date: 12/29/2023

                       -4-