Opinion
1063 MDA 2023 J-A02035-24
01-10-2024
KRISTINE KLUEBER v. JOSEPH SHERIFF, JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 20, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 202306347
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Sheriff, Jr. ("Sheriff") appeals pro se from the order granting a Protection from Abuse Act petition ("PFA") to Kristine Klueber ("Klueber"). We dismiss and strike the case from the argument list.
On June 15, 2023, Klueber applied for a PFA against Sheriff. The trial court conducted an ex parte hearing and granted a temporary PFA. On June 20, 2023, after a hearing at which both parties were present, the trial court granted Klueber a three-year PFA to Klueber. Two days later, Sheriff was charged with indirect criminal contempt for allegedly violating the PFA.
The PFA does not extend to the parties' child, J.K., who is the subject of a custody order in a neighboring county.
The hearing on the charge against Sheriff was repeatedly delayed and is not relevant to this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/23, at 3 n.3.
On July 20, 2023, Sheriff filed a timely notice of appeal from the final PFA order. He included with his appeal an untitled, two-page handwritten document alleging the trial court is racist, Klueber lied at the PFA hearing, and Sheriff is "bringing [his] evidence to prove it." Sheriff's Untitled Document filed with Notice of Appeal, 7/20/23, at 1-2 unnumbered. The trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Sheriff has filed a purported brief. In that seven-page document, Sheriff recites his version of events from June 13, 2023, until the grant of the PFA petition on June 20, 2023, including assertions that: (1) Klueber presented false evidence; (2) Sheriff told the trial court Klueber had a habit of lying; (3) the police report contains contradictions concerning his alleged violation of the PFA; and (4) the trial court and a police officer are trying to have him falsely imprisoned. See Sheriff's Brief at 1-4 unnumbered. Sheriff also makes claims concerning events following the issuance of the PFA. See id. at 3-7 unnumbered. At the conclusion of his brief, Sheriff asks that the PFA violation and the PFA both be "dropped" because Klueber is a liar; he also asks that the trial court be removed from the case because the court is "trying to get [Sheriff] falsely imprisoned." See id. at 7 unnumbered.
In its opinion, the trial court concluded Sheriff failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) because in his July 20, 2023 filing, the only document that could be considered a Rule 1925(b) statement failed to identify any ruling or error he intended to challenge with sufficient specificity to identify the pertinent issues. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/23, at 3, citing Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii).
The trial court erroneously concluded that Sheriff's appeal was untimely filed. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/23, at 2. See also 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (providing time is computed to exclude the first and include the last day of a time period).
As an initial matter, we must consider whether the defects in Sheriff's brief require dismissal of the appeal. Appellate briefs must conform materially to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure ("Pa.R.A.P."), and this Court may dismiss an appeal if the defects in the brief are substantial. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017). "Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit. Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court." Id. (citation omitted). It is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. See Commonwealth v. Westlake, 295 A.3d 1281, 1286 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2023). An appellate brief must support its claims with pertinent discussion, references to the record, and citations to legal authorities. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). "This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." Id. If a deficient brief hinders this Court's ability to address any issue on review, the issue will be regarded as waived. See Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding an appellant's failure to support his claim with factual background and citations to the record represented "serious deviations from the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure," waiving review of the claim) (citation omitted).
Sheriff's brief fails to comply with multiple rules of appellate procedure. It does not contain: a statement of jurisdiction (see Pa.R.A.P. 2114), a statement of order or other determination in question (see Pa.R.A.P. 2115), a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the questions involved (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4), a statement of the case (see Pa.R.A.P. 2117), or a summary of argument (see Pa.R.A.P. 2118). Of greatest import, Sheriff's brief is devoid of any references to or discussion of applicable legal standards, statutes, or case law. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing the argument shall be followed by the discussion and citation of pertinent authorities).
Given these deficiencies, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the issues Sheriff purports to raise. Accordingly, Sheriff's failure to conform with our appellate rules compels the dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (providing that "if the defects . . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal . . . may be . . . dismissed").
Sheriff's brief fails to identify a legal error or abuse of discretion by the trial court, the basis on which we may grant relief on appeal of a PFA order. See E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.2d 509, 519 (Pa. Super. 2020). Moreover, Sheriff's appeal is from the grant of the PFA; he cannot seek relief concerning his alleged violation of the PFA.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list.
Judgment Entered.