Court Opinion

ID: 9915802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 17:18:12.396031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:09.148764
License: Public Domain

J-S36042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  QIANTA SMITH                                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
  GEORGE FRANCIS                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 11 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 20, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
                      Civil Division at No(s): 2021-81844

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

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                               FILED JANUARY 8, 2024

       Appellant, George Francis, appeals from the order entered in the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, under the Protection from Abuse

(“PFA”) Act,1 in favor of Appellee, Qianta Smith. We quash the appeal.

       The PFA court set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows:

          [Appellee] testified that after she had broken off their
          intimate relationship, she asked [Appellant] on numerous
          occasions to leave her alone to which [Appellant]
          responded, “I will never stop following you” and “I will never
          leave you alone.” [Appellant] stated to [Appellee] that the
          only way their relationship would end would be by a
          “murder-suicide.” [Appellee] testified that on the evening
          that led to her filing a request for a temporary PFA,
          [Appellant] called her and insinuated that he was watching
          her by stating he knew what room she was in …, and that
          he knew she was going out that evening. [Appellee] stated
          that she … went out that night to a private, members-only
          club in Philadelphia to meet with friends but she did not tell
____________________________________________

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122.
J-S36042-23

          [Appellant] that she was going out or where she was going.
          [Appellee] testified that upon arrival at the club, she was
          alarmed when she saw [Appellant] standing behind her and
          that she became increasingly concerned after [Appellant]
          proceeded to follow her around the club, despite her
          continued requests that he leave her alone. [Appellant]
          then told her that he would see her later at her house.
          [Appellee] thought little of that until a mutual friend told her
          that [Appellant] had broken into her house. [Appellee] went
          back to her home and found it destroyed. [Appellant] had
          shattered glass tables and televisions, smashed holes in her
          shower and sink, broke pipes causing excessive water to
          leak from her ceiling … and cut the electrical wires.
          [Appellant] found her new puppy in the basement of the
          home soaking wet and covered in glass.               [Appellee]
          immediately contacted the police. [Appellee] testified that
          she is terrified of [Appellant] and felt that she had to move
          out of her home to get away from him.

(PFA Court Opinion, filed 2/17/23, at 2-3) (unnumbered).

       On November 9, 2021, Appellee filed a PFA petition against Appellant.

Based upon the allegations in the petition, the court issued a temporary PFA

order and scheduled a hearing on the matter. Thereafter, the court granted

multiple continuances. While the matter was continued, Appellant violated

the temporary PFA order on three occasions.            The Commonwealth filed

criminal complaints charging Appellant with indirect criminal contempt (“ICC”)

for each violation.     (See Criminal Complaint at MD-53-21, filed 11/23/21;

Criminal Complaint at MD-54-21, filed 11/23/21; Criminal Complaint at MD-

12-22, filed 2/26/22).2

____________________________________________

2 We observe that the Commonwealth filed two of the criminal complaints on

the same day because Appellant violated the temporary PFA twice within a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S36042-23

       The court ultimately conducted the PFA hearing on October 14, 2022,

and neither Appellant nor counsel appeared. After receiving testimony from

Appellee, the court issued a final PFA order that remains in effect until October

14, 2025. The court also continued a separate hearing on the ICC charges.

On November 18, 2022, Appellant appeared with counsel for the hearing on

the ICC charges. At that time, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas at

each of the underlying docket numbers, and the court imposed an aggregate

sentence of eighteen months of probation. Appellant filed a pro se notice of

appeal on December 20, 2022.3 The court did not order Appellant to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

       As a prefatory matter, “Time limitations for taking appeals are strictly

construed and cannot be extended as a matter of grace.” Commonwealth

v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa.Super. 2014). “This Court can raise the

matter sua sponte, as the issue is one of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.”

Id.    This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an untimely appeal.

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 497 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal

denied, 599 Pa. 691, 960 A.2d 838 (2008). “[T]he notice of appeal … shall be

filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is

____________________________________________

matter of hours.        (See Affidavit of Probable Cause at MD-54-21, filed
11/23/21).

3 The pro se notice of appeal referenced one Court of Common Pleas docket

number, which corresponded to the PFA matter. The pro se notice of appeal
did not include any of the docket numbers corresponding to the ICC cases.

                                           -3-
J-S36042-23

taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

      Instantly, Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal purports to appeal from

“the order” entered on December 20, 2022. Nevertheless, there is no order

on the Court of Common Pleas docket for that date. In examining Appellant’s

brief on appeal, the thrust of his argument is that Appellee “said on the stand

that I have never abused her or threatened her in the 20 years that I have

known her, but somehow I had a PFA case against me.” (Appellant’s Brief at

4) (unnumbered). Thus, it appears that Appellant is attempting to challenge

the final PFA order, which the court entered on October 14, 2022.

      Regarding Appellant’s challenge to the final PFA order, the PFA court

correctly observed that Appellant should have filed the pro se notice of appeal

within thirty days of October 14, 2022:

         [O]n October 14, 2022, neither counsel nor [Appellant] were
         present. The court, sua sponte, deferred the ICC cases until
         November 18, 2022. However, [Appellee’s] counsel along
         with [Appellee] appeared and reminded the court that
         [Appellant] received notice of the final PFA hearing date and
         that [Appellee] was prepared to proceed on the PFA. The
         Judge determined that service had been made, and despite
         [Appellant’s] absence, the PFA case was called. Evidence
         presented revealed to the court that [Appellee] had been
         subjected to [Appellant’s] actions, which justified the
         issuance of a final PFA order. The Order and a [Pa.R.C.P.]
         236 Notice were mailed to [Appellant’s] last known
         [address] later that day. [Appellant’s last known address
         that was employed by the court for sending notices is
         identical to the address listed on Appellant’s pro se notice of
         appeal.] Additionally, the record demonstrates that the final
         PFA order was also served personally upon [Appellant] in
         open court on November 18, 2022, at the next scheduled
         ICC proceeding.

                                      -4-
J-S36042-23

(PFA Court Opinion at 2) (unnumbered).              We accept the court’s analysis.

Following the entry of the final PFA order, the appeal period began to run from

October 14, 2022.        See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).         Therefore, Appellant filed an

untimely pro se notice of appeal on December 20, 2022, more than thirty days

after the final PFA order that he now seeks to challenge.4 Id.

       Moreover, we recognize that appellate briefs and reproduced records

must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure.       Pa.R.A.P. 2101.       “[I]f the defects are in the brief or

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal … may be

quashed or dismissed.” Id.

       Regarding the statement of questions involved section of an appellate

brief, Rule 2116(a) states:

          Rule 2116. Statement of Questions Involved

          (a)      General rule.—The statement of the questions
          involved must state concisely the issues to be resolved,
____________________________________________

4 Even if we construed Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal as an attempt to

challenge the sentences imposed for the ICC convictions, we would still be
constrained to quash the appeal. The court imposed the ICC sentences on
November 18, 2022. The certified record on appeal does not reveal that
Appellant filed any post-sentence motions. Thus, Appellant needed to file a
notice of appeal on or before Monday, December 19, 2022 to challenge the
ICC sentences.      See Commonwealth v. Duffy, 143 A.3d 940, 944
(Pa.Super. 2016) (explaining that thirty-day appeal period commences when
sentence is imposed at hearing, rather than when sentencing order is
docketed); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 617 n.4 (Pa.Super.
2012) (stating judgment of sentence constitutes final order in criminal case);
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(3) (stating defendant’s notice of appeal shall be filed
within 30 days of imposition of sentence if defendant does not file timely post-
sentence motion).

                                           -5-
J-S36042-23

          expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but
          without unnecessary detail. The statement will be deemed
          to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised
          therein. No question will be considered unless it is
          stated in the statement of questions involved or is
          fairly suggested thereby. Each question shall be followed
          by an answer stating simply whether the court or
          government unit agreed, disagreed, did not answer, or did
          not address the question. If a qualified answer was given
          to the question, appellant shall indicate the nature of the
          qualification, or if the question was not answered or
          addressed and the record shows the reason for such failure,
          the reason shall be stated briefly in each instance without
          quoting the court or government unit below.

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (emphasis added).

      Regarding the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a)

states:

          Rule 2119. Argument

          (a)       General rule.—The argument shall be divided into
          as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
          have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in type
          distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein,
          followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
          deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Where an appellant fails to properly raise or develop his

issues on appeal, or where his brief is wholly inadequate to present specific

issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the claims raised on

appeal. Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant

waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her

claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and

consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain

                                      -6-
J-S36042-23

or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error

of law).   See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006)

(explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate

procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived

on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where party

has failed to cite any authority in support of contention).

      “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. To

the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding

must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal

training will be his undoing.” Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85

(Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007). Further,

“it is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to supply this Court with a complete

record for purposes of review.”       Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623

(Pa.Super. 1993), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 680, 652 A.2d 1325 (1994)

(emphasis in original). “[A] failure by an [a]ppellant to insure that the original

record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper

review constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined.” Id. at

623-24.

      Here, the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial. Appellant’s brief

is not divided into appropriate sections, and Appellant did not include a

statement of questions presented to identify the specific issues he wishes to

                                      -7-
J-S36042-23

raise on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Further, Appellant fails to cite to any

relevant authority to support his contention that the court erred by entering

the final PFA order. See Lackner, supra; Butler, supra. Rather, Appellant

simply provides his own, self-serving rendition of the underlying facts and

procedural history with no corresponding conclusions of law.             Even if

Appellant’s brief provided an argument, the certified record does not include

the relevant transcripts for the PFA or ICC hearings. Without the relevant

notes of testimony, we are unable to conduct any meaningful appellate

review.5 See Smith, supra.

       Based upon the foregoing, we quash the appeal as untimely filed. We

also admonish Appellant for the defects in his brief, as well as his inability to

provide this Court with a complete record to review.

       Appeal quashed.

Date: 1/8/2024

____________________________________________

5 Appellant included portions of transcripts as an attachment to his brief, but

these transcripts appear to be from separate criminal matters arising from
Appellant’s destruction of Appellee’s property.

                                           -8-