Court Opinion

ID: 9751174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:09:58.81263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:39.660740
License: Public Domain

J-S29004-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    ABIGAIL AYALA                              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    LEVONZIA STEVENS JR.                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 186 MDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
                      Civil Division at 2023-FC-000095-12

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.:                          FILED AUGUST 28, 2023

       Levonzia Stevens, Jr. (Appellant), appeals pro se from a final order

entered pursuant to the Protection from Abuse (PFA) Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§

6101-6122.1 As we are unable to conduct meaningful review, we dismiss the

appeal.

       Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court ordered

Appellant to file a concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 After a hearing, the trial court ordered, inter alia, that Appellant was
prohibited from having contact with Abigail Ayala (Ayala); “evicted and
excluded” from any residence where Ayala “may live”; prohibited from posting
any remarks or images regarding Ayala on social media or “other electronic
networks”; prohibited from possessing or acquiring any firearms; and directed
to relinquish “any and all licenses to carry a firearm.” Order, 1/25/23.
J-S29004-23

However, Appellant did “not explain[] in his concise statement what error he

believes the trial court may have made.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/1/23, at 2

(stating Appellant “makes allegations related to [Ayala] and asks the court to

seek and weigh additional evidence.”). The trial court concluded Appellant did

“not aid the court in understanding what issues to address on appeal.” Id.

The trial court added, “all issues or alleged errors not raised herein are

deemed waived.” Id.

      Appellant’s brief is also deficient.   Appellant’s brief consists of the

following two paragraphs:

            In Pennsylvania abuse is defined as, causing or attempting
      to cause injury or certain sexual offenses causing reasonable fear
      of immediate, serious injury, the crime of false imprisonment[,]
      physical or sexual abuse of the children as defined by the Child
      Protective Services Act, or repeatedly following, or other acts, that
      place you in reasonable fear of injury. Statue 23 Pa. C.S.A § 6101,
      Protection from Abuse Act.

            Per the statu[te] above[, Appellant] did not violate any of
      the requirements to have [a] PFA issued on him. It is believe[d]
      the court’s decision was made with bias do [sic] to a previous PFA
      issued, in which Ms. Ayala lied to the courts to discredit
      [Appellant’s] credibility, [and] to cover up her actions in the
      community. It is believed Ms. Ayala has no physical evidence
      against [Appellant] and the courts have only accepted her words,
      which are not accurate. For these reasons I am requesting an
      appeal hearing.

Appellant’s Brief (unnumbered).

      Appellant has disregarded nearly every rule pertaining to contents of

appellate briefs. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. Briefs must conform materially

to the requirements of the rules and this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal

                                      -2-
J-S29004-23

if the defects are substantial.     Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Smithson v.

Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Although we are willing to construe liberally materials filed by pro se litigants,

pro se litigants enjoy no special benefit. Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160

A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). Pro se litigants must comply with the rules

set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833

A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super. 2003).

      Instantly, the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief impede our review.

We are thus constrained to dismiss the appeal. See Smithson, 264 A.3d at

760 (dismissing appeal where “Appellant’s noncompliance with our rules of

procedure forecloses any possibility of meaningful appellate review.”).

      Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 08/28/2023

                                      -3-