J-S26006-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MELISSA A. OVERBY
Appellant No. 2810 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-13-CR-0000934-2013
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 12, 2016
Appellant, Melissa A. Overby, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered on August 27, 2015, following her jury trial conviction for
endangering the welfare of a child, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). Because
Appellant’s brief has substantial defects precluding our review, we dismiss
the appeal.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 provides that:
Briefs ... shall conform in all material respects with the
requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances
of the particular case will admit, ... if the defects are in the
brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or
dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Under our appellate rules, an appellant’s brief shall contain:
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26006-16
(a) General rule.--The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, 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 [trial court’s] opinion[] [relating to the
determination under review.]
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement
of errors complained of on appeal, filed with
the trial court pursuant to Rule 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.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Here, aside from attaching the trial court’s opinion to her brief
pursuant to subsection 10 above, Appellant did not comply with any of the
additional briefing requirements. Instead, in her appellate brief, Appellant
-2-
J-S26006-16
sets forth bald contentions in narrative form with bullet points. However,
the most egregious error is Appellant’s failure to cite any relevant legal
authority. We previously stated:
The Rules of Appellate Procedure require that appellants
adequately develop each issue raised with discussion of
pertinent facts and pertinent authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
It is not this Court's responsibility to comb through the
record seeking the factual underpinnings of an appellant's
claim. Further, this Court will not become counsel for an
appellant and develop arguments on an appellant's behalf.
It [is an appellant’s] responsibility to provide an adequately
developed argument by identifying the factual bases of
[her] claim and providing citation to and discussion of
relevant authority in relation to those facts. [When she] has
failed to do so, we find [those] issue[s] waived.
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2014) (case
citations omitted). In this case, Appellant does not cite any authority
whatsoever, thus, even if we were able to discern her precise claims, she
waived all issues by failing to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
Finally, we note that:
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 [herself] in a legal proceeding must,
to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise
and legal training will be [her] undoing.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal
citations omitted).
Appeal dismissed.
-3-
J-S26006-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/12/2016
-4-