J-S34021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTINA M. RAMER
Appellant No. 2114 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of the 17th Judicial District
Snyder County Branch
Criminal Division at No: CP-55-SA-0000021-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and JENKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2016
Appellant Christina M. Ramer pro se appeals from the August 27, 2015
judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of the 17th
Judicial District, Snyder County Branch (“trial court”), following her summary
conviction for disorderly conduct under Section 5503(a)(1) of the Crimes
Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1). Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are
undisputed. Briefly, Appellant was charged with the foregoing offense after
it was alleged that she loudly stated to two individuals at China House
Restaurant that “[i]f I see you out on the street I will fuck you up. I know
where you live.” Appellant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was
sentenced to pay a $125.00 fine. Appellant timely filed a summary appeal
for a trial de novo. See Commonwealth. v. Toner, 663 A.2d 202, 205 (Pa.
J-S34021-16
Super. 1995) (noting that a defendant may file an appeal for a trial de novo
after pleading guilty to a summary offense); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(a).
On August 27, 2015, the trial court held a trial de novo, at the conclusion of
which it found Appellant guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced her to
pay a fine of $125.00. Appellant pro se timely appealed to this Court.
Following Appellant’s filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. 1
As a prefatory matter, although this Court is willing to construe
liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers
no special benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d
245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005).
Here, Appellant has failed to comply in any meaningful way with the Rules of
Appellate Procedure, especially as they relate to briefing. In addition to
Appellant’s many briefing deficiencies, we must point out that her brief does
____________________________________________
1
The trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that Appellant “has taken
no steps to order a transcript” of the hearing and as a consequence, the trial
court was “proceeding on the basis of [its] memory of the proceedings and
[its] hearing notes. Trial Court Opinion, 11/24/15, at 1 n.1. Thus, to the
extent Appellant here raises any issues that would require us to review the
trial transcript, such issues are waived. See Commonwealth v. Preston,
904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“Our law is unequivocal that the
responsibility rests upon the appellant to ensure that the record certified on
appeal is complete in the sense that it contains all of the materials necessary
for the reviewing court to perform its duty.”), appeal denied, 916 A.2d 632
(Pa. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. O’Black, 897 A.2d 1234, 1240
(Pa. Super. 2006) (noting that we cannot review claims raised on appeal
meaningfully unless we are provided with a full and complete certified
record).
-2-
J-S34021-16
not contain a statement of jurisdiction (Pa.R.A.P. 2114), order or other
determinations in question (Pa.R.A.P. 2115), statement of questions
involved (Pa.R.A.P. 2116), statement of the case (Pa.R.A.P. 2117), summary
of the argument (Pa.R.A.P. 2118), or argument (Pa.R.A.P. 2118). To the
extent we are able to discern an argument in her brief, Appellant appears to
argue only that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent
her on the de novo appeal and, as a result, her due process rights under the
6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated.
The argument, however, is not developed and is devoid of any legal
authority. Accordingly, it is waived. Indeed, it is settled that where an
appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to
relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful
fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. Commonwealth v.
Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 754 (Pa. Super. 2014); see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)
(providing that each point treated in an argument must be “followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”).
Even if Appellant’s claim were not waived, she still would not be
entitled to relief. Here, as the trial court aptly noted, Appellant was not
entitled to appointment of counsel on her trial de novo for the summary
offense of disorderly conduct because she was not at risk for imprisonment.
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(a)(1) (“Counsel shall be appointed . . . in all summary
cases, for all defendants who are without financial resources or who are
-3-
J-S34021-16
otherwise unable to employ counsel when there is a likelihood that
imprisonment will be imposed.”).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2016
-4-