Court Opinion

ID: 9391536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 16:09:11.858643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.122409
License: Public Domain

J-A12029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 ABDUL-RAHEEM HUMPHREY                     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant              :
                                           :
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 IJNANYA YOUNG                             :   No. 3145 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations
                          at No(s): 0C1800639

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                               FILED MAY 2, 2023

      Appellant Abdul-Raheem Humphrey (Father) purports to appeal pro se

from the September 1, 2022 order granting him supervised partial physical

custody and granting Appellee Ijnanya Young (Mother) sole legal and primary

physical custody of their minor child N.H. (Child), the September 1, 2022 order

holding Father in contempt, and the November 21, 2022 denying Father’s

various custody-related petitions.      Also before this Court are Mother’s

applications to dismiss the appeal and for an extension of time to file a brief.

For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal and dismiss Mother’s

application for an extension of time to file a brief as moot.

      The underlying facts and procedural history are well known to the

parties.   See Trial Ct. Op., 1/23/23, at 1-11 (unpaginated).       Briefly, on

September 1, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court entered a custody order

granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of Child and granting
J-A12029-23

Father supervised partial physical custody of Child. That same day, the trial

court entered an order holding Father in contempt of the trial court’s January

5, 2022 custody order and ordered Father to pay Mother $500 as a sanction.

Father did not file a notice of appeal from either of these orders at that time.

       Subsequently on November 3, 2022, Father filed a pro se petition for

contempt. The following day, Father filed a pro se petition to modify custody

and a pro se petition for emergency relief. Following a hearing on November

18, 2022, the trial court entered an order on November 21, 2022, denying

Father’s petitions and ordering that the September 1, 2022 custody order

remains in effect.

       On December 13, 2022,1 Father filed a notice of appeal purporting to

appeal from the September 1, 2022 custody order, the September 1, 2022

contempt order, and the November 21, 2022 custody order.                  Father

subsequently filed a court ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement.2 The

____________________________________________

1 Both the trial court and Mother state that Father filed his notice of appeal on
December 18, 2022. See Trial Ct. Op. at 9, 13 (unpaginated); Mother’s App.
to Dismiss at 1 (unpaginated). Our review of the record indicates that Father
filed his notice of appeal on December 13, 2022, which is the same date the
trial court issued its Rule 1925(b) order. See Notice of Appeal, 12/13/22;
Trial Ct. Order, 12/13/22.

2 In a children’s fast track appeal, “[t]he concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal shall be filed and served with the notice of appeal
required by Rule 905.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). However, we decline to find
waiver on this basis as Father’s late filing of his Rule 1925(b) concise
statement does not run contrary to an order of this Court or of the trial court,
and no party had raised any allegation of prejudice. See In re K.T.E.L., 983
A.2d 745, 747-48 (Pa. Super. 2009).

                                           -2-
J-A12029-23

trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion concluding that Father’s appeal from

the September 1, 2022 orders was untimely filed, and also addressed Father’s

claims on the merits. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13, 16-21 (unpaginated).

      Before reaching the merits of Father’s appellate issues, we must address

Mother’s application to dismiss the appeal with respect to the trial court’s

September 1, 2022 orders.      Mother argues that this Court does not have

jurisdiction to hear Father’s appeal from those orders because the appeal was

untimely filed. Mother’s App. to Dismiss at 1-2 (unpaginated); see also Trial

Ct. Op. at 12-13.

      It is well established that “the timeliness of an appeal implicates our

jurisdiction[.]” Krankowski v. O’Neil, 928 A.2d 284, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007)

(citation omitted)). In order to be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed

within thirty days after entry of the appealable order. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); see

also Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1) (stating that the date of entry of an order is the day

the clerk of court mails copies of the order to the parties). Rule of Appellate

Procedure 341 provides, in relevant part, “an appeal may be taken as of right

from any final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).

This Court has explained that “a custody order will be considered final and

appealable only if it is both: 1) entered after the court has completed its

hearings on the merits; and 2) intended by the court to constitute a complete

resolution of the custody claims pending between the parties.” Kassam v.

Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023, 1027 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted and

formatting altered). Also, “a finding of contempt is final and appealable when

                                     -3-
J-A12029-23

a sanction is imposed.” J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1264 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(en banc) (citation omitted).

       Here, Father filed a single notice of appeal on December 13, 2022,

purporting to appeal from three different orders: two entered on September

1, 2022 and the third entered on November 21, 2022.3 Our review of the

record indicates that the trial court’s September 1, 2022 custody order was a

final and appealable order because it was entered after the hearing, and it

resolved all pending custody claims. Kassam, 811 A.2d at 1027. Further,

the September 1, 2022 contempt order was final because it imposed a

sanction of $500 payable to Mother. See J.M., 164 A.3d at 1264. Father filed

his notice of appeal 103 days after these orders were entered, therefore

Father’s appeal is patently untimely with respect to the September 1, 2022

orders.    See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).           For these reasons, we grant Mother’s

application and dismiss Father’s appeal insofar as Father appealed from the

trial court’s September 1, 2022 orders.

       Concerning the November 21, 2022 custody order, we note that Father

has filed a brief in which he argues that he and Child were denied due process

and that the trial court’s order violates various state and federal statutes
____________________________________________

3 We note that our Supreme Court has explained that generally, “[t]aking one
appeal from separate judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.
It has been held that a single appeal is incapable of bringing on for review
more than one final order . . . .” Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co., 263 A.2d 448, 452 (Pa. 1970). However, given our disposition of
Mother’s application to dismiss, the defect in Father’s notice of appeal
regarding multiple orders is moot.

                                           -4-
J-A12029-23

related to protection from abuse. Father’s Brief at 1-3. Father also asserts

that he was wrongfully arrested for kidnapping Child, and that the charges

were subsequently amended to interference with custody of children and

concealment of whereabouts of a child4 in connection with this custody matter.

Id. at 2.

        Before addressing Father’s claims insofar as they relate to the November

21, 2022 custody order, we must consider whether Father complied with the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This issue is a pure question of

law for which “our scope of review is plenary[,] and the standard of review is

de novo.”     Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 974 (Pa. 2018),

overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa.

2021).      It is well settled that appellate briefs must conform to the

requirements set forth in the appellate rules. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207,

1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).         Further, if the defects in an

appellant’s brief “are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed

or dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

        The Rules set forth specific requirements for the required content of an

appellate brief.    See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).       Among other things, briefs must

contain a statement of jurisdiction, statement of both the scope of review and

the standard of review, statement of the questions involved, statement of the

____________________________________________

4   18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2904(a) and 2909(a), respectively.

                                           -5-
J-A12029-23

case, summary of argument, argument section, and a short conclusion stating

the precise relief sought. See id.

      Further, this Court has explained that an appellant’s pro se status does

not relieve them of their duty to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008).

“Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.” Ullman,

995 A.2d at 1211-12 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel

and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” U.S. Bank, N.A.

v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).

      Here, Father has filed a three-page brief in which he raises a generalized

claim that the trial court’s order violated his and Child’s due process rights

and various state and federal laws. Father’s Brief at 1-3. However, although

Father attached the trial court’s opinion to his brief, Father has otherwise failed

to meet any of the requirements for an appellate brief.            See Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(1), (3)-(6), (8)-(9). Further, Father has failed to develop his claim

in any meaningful fashion or provide any basis for why this Court should

reverse the trial court’s November 21, 2022 order. See Pautenis, 118 A.3d

at 394.

      Under these circumstances, and given the substantial defects in Father’s

brief, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Father’s claims insofar

as they relate to the trial court’s November 21, 2022 custody order. For these

                                       -6-
J-A12029-23

reasons, we are constrained to dismiss Father’s appeal of the November 21,

2022 custody order.5,6 See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12.

       Appeal dismissed.       Oral argument cancelled.   Mother’s application to

dismiss appeal granted. Mother’s application for an extension of time to file a

brief dismissed as moot. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/2/2023

____________________________________________

5 Because we dismiss Father’s appeal, Mother’s application for an extension of
time to file an appellate brief is moot.

6 In any event, even if we were to address whether the trial court abused its
discretion in denying Father’s custody-related petitions, we would affirm on
the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 19-21 (unpaginated).

                                           -7-