Court Opinion

ID: 9865419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:08:43.06734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:20.973305
License: Public Domain

J-S33038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KRISTA LEIGH JOESTEN                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 33 WDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 7, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-02-SA-0000418-2021

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

       Appellant Krista Leigh Joesten appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County following

her conviction on the sole charge of failure to stop for traffic-control signals

(a red light), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3112(a)(3)(i). After a careful review, we dismiss

this appeal.

       The relevant facts and procedural history have been aptly set forth by

the trial court as follows:

              [Appellant] appealed her Magisterial District Court
       conviction for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3112 (failure to stop for
       traffic-control signals). The [summary appeal trial] date of
       November 3, 2021, was hand-written on the Notice of Appeal. A
       Commonwealth Motion for Postponement was granted, and the
       case was rescheduled for February 23, 2022. The Commonwealth
       filed another Motion for Postponement. [Appellant objected], and
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33038-23

      a [trial] was scheduled on the Motion, but [Appellant] failed to
      show, so the postponement was granted[.] [T]he case was
      rescheduled for April 20, 2022. A Motion for Postponement for
      [Appellant] was granted, and the case was rescheduled for July
      19, 2022. Another Commonwealth Motion for Postponement was
      granted on July 19, 2022, and the case was rescheduled for
      October 10, 2022.     The [trial] court noted it was the last
      Commonwealth Postponement that would be granted. The case
      was postponed by the [trial] court to December 7, 2022.
             A [summary trial] occurred on December 7, 2022. The
      victim and the [police] officer, who were witnesses [for the
      Commonwealth], both appeared. [Appellant did not appear.] The
      [trial] court entered an Order dismissing [Appellant’s] summary
      appeal after [Appellant] failed to appear, and [the court] entered
      judgment on the judgment of the issuing authority. [Appellant]
      filed a [pro se] notice of appeal to the Superior Court of
      Pennsylvania on January 4, 2023….On January 6, 2023,
      [Appellant] was Ordered to file a [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) Concise
      Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal within 21 days,
      which [Appellant timely] filed on January 26, 2023. [The trial court
      filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on February 27, 2023.]

Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/23, at 1-2.

      Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the

requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.          Pa.R.A.P.

2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter

may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:

      [A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
      by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
      benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d
      1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant
      must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
      Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. 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. Id., Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

                                      -2-
J-S33038-23

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa.Super. 2014)

(citations omitted).

      Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates

that the brief of the appellant shall consist of the following matters, separately

and distinctly entitled and in the following order:

      (1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
      (2) Order or other determination in question.
      (3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard of
        review.
      (4) Statement of the questions involved.
      (5) Statement of the case.
      (6) Summary of argument.
      (7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge the
        discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.
      (8) Argument for appellant.
      (9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
      (10) The opinions and pleadings specified in paragraphs (b) and
        (c) of this rule.
      (11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors
        complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to
        Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a
        statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
        Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
      (12) The certificates of compliance required by Pa.R.A.P. 127 and
      2135(d).

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

      Citing the above rules, this Court has explained that we “will not

consider the merits of an argument, which fails to cite relevant case or

statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver

                                       -3-
J-S33038-23

of the claim on appeal.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209

(Pa.Super. 2012). See Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149

(Pa.Super. 1982).

      In the case sub judice, Appellant has not attempted to structure her

brief to comply with the Rule 2111(a) requirements, thus hampering effective

appellate review. Sanford, supra. Specifically, aside from a short conclusion

wherein she requests a new trial, Appellant’s brief consists solely of a

“Statement of the Case” and “Argument,” wherein she sets forth a combined

total of five pages consisting of her version of factual events with bald

assertions of error.

      Relevantly, her brief contains no statement of jurisdiction, no statement

of scope and standard of review, no statement of questions involved, no

summary of argument, no citations to the record or legal authority, and no

coherent, developed argument.      See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).      While she has

attached the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion to her brief, she has not

attached a copy of her Rule 1925(b) statement.

      As this Court has held:

      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. The
      Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly provide that an appeal may
      be quashed “if the defects are in the brief…of the appellant and
      are substantial[.]” Pa.R.App.P. 2101.

Sanford, 445 A.2d at 150-51 (citing Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 396 A.2d

29 (Pa.Super. 1978)) (other citations omitted).     See Commonwealth v.

                                     -4-
J-S33038-23

Merwine, 1651 MDA 2022, 2023 WL 4487770 (Pa.Super. filed 6/12/23)

(unpublished memorandum) (dismissing appeal where the appellate brief

failed to conform to Rule 2111(a)); Commonwealth v. Nachmenson, 540

MDA     2020,    248    A.3d    497     (Pa.Super.   filed   1/22/21)   (unpublished

memorandum) (quashing appeal where the defects in the pro se brief were

substantial and prevented meaningful review); K.B. v. D.A.P., 598 MDA 2021,

2021 WL 4739422 (Pa.Super. filed 10/12/21) (unpublished memorandum)

(quashing appeal where the appellate brief failed to raise or properly address

any issues); Commonwealth v. Bradbury, 530 MDA 2021, 2021 WL

4593392 (Pa.Super. filed 10/6/21) (unpublished memorandum) (dismissing

appeal due to wholly defective brief); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 1288

MDA 2020, 2021 WL 1743018, *2 (Pa.Super. filed 5/3/21) (unpublished

memorandum) (quashing appeal due to defective appellate brief and noting it

is not our duty to give pro se litigants a “do over” based on their lack of legal

knowledge).1

       As in the cases cited supra, we find the defects in Appellant’s brief are

substantial so as to preclude effective appellate review. We recognize that

Appellant is proceeding pro se in this summary traffic appeal. However, we

____________________________________________

1 We note that, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential

decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their
persuasive value. We find guidance in the unpublished memorandums cited
supra and find them to be persuasive in this matter.

                                           -5-
J-S33038-23

decline to become Appellant’s counsel. While we are willing to construe

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, “[a]ny 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.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa.Super.

1996) (citation omitted).

     Based on the aforementioned, we dismiss this appeal.

     Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/25/2023

                                   -6-