J-A07010-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA; BRANCH TOWNSHIP : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT J. JONES :
: No. 1068 MDA 2019
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-54-SA-0000003-2019
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: APRIL 13, 2020
Appellant, Robert J. Jones, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered on May 29, 2019, following his bench trial de novo appeal
before the Court of Common pleas of Schuylkill County for failing to remove
rubbish from the exterior of his residential property in violation of a local
ordinance.1 Upon review, we dismiss the appeal.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. The Commonwealth cited Appellant with purported local code
violations for having an accumulation of rubbish or garbage on his residential
____________________________________________
1 Branch Township Ordinance No. 1-212, Section 307.1 pursuant to Section
1517 of the Second Class Township Code, 53 P.S. Section 65101 (governing
the condition and maintenance of all property building structures in the
Township).
J-A07010-20
property.2 The magisterial district court found Appellant to be in violation of
Section 307.1 and ordered him to pay $340.72 in fines and costs. Appellant
appealed pro se to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County for a de
novo hearing. Following two days of testimony, the trial court affirmed the
magisterial district court decision by order entered on May 29, 2019. This
timely pro se appeal resulted.3
Upon review, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for failing to substantially
comply with our rules of appellate procedure. We have previously
determined:
When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is
an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently
developed for our review. Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d
869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006).
The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with
references to the record and with citations to legal authorities.
Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b), (c). Citations to authorities must
articulate the principles for which they are cited. Pa.R.A.P.
2119(b).
This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments
on behalf of an appellant. Gould, 912 A.2d at 873. Moreover,
when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find
certain issues to be waived. Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
____________________________________________
2 Appellant was also cited for storing motor vehicles on the property under
Section 302.8 of the local ordinance. However, he abated that problem and
that offense is not at issue herein.
3 Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on August 26, 2019.
-2-
J-A07010-20
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).
“[A]lthough 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, 251–252 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citation omitted). “Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Id.
Here, aside from affixing a copy of the local ordinance at issue to his
appellate brief, Appellant has not provided this Court with any pertinent legal
discussion regarding the issue(s) he purports to appeal. Furthermore,
Appellant failed to set forth a statement of questions presented section of his
brief and instead presents a stream of conscious presentation of four issues
he deems worthy of review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall
be divided into as many sections as there are questions presented, followed
by discussion with citation to relevant legal authority); see also Pa.R.A.P.
2116(a) (explaining statement of questions involved must state concisely
issues to be resolved); see also Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014
(Pa. Super. 1993) (stating noncompliance with Rule 2116 is particularly
grievous because statement of questions involved defines specific issues for
review). Appellant also fails to include our scope of review in his appellate
brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3). Based upon the foregoing deficiencies,
-3-
J-A07010-20
Appellant’s appellate brief precludes meaningful review and, thus, we dismiss
the appeal.4
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Dubow joins.
Judge McLaughlin concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/13/2020
____________________________________________
4 The trial court discerned that Appellant’s chief complaint was that the
compliance officer did not specifically inform Appellant of what specific items
required removal from the property. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/2019, at
4. Ultimately, the trial court determined that Appellant admitted that he had
not removed items of rubbish, but had merely moved items to other locations
on the property to hide them from view. Id. at 6. Upon review of photographs
taken after Appellant’s purported remedial efforts, the trial court determined
that the “various combustible and noncombustible waste materials such as
wood, rubber, tin cans, metals, mineral matter and other similar materials”
were so pervasive that “[t]o have the [o]fficer complete an itemization of the
rubbish to be removed by Appellant [was] not warranted.” Id. at 7. Although
we dismiss this appeal, we would otherwise affirm the trial court’s opinion, as
it did not err as a matter of law in affirming the magisterial district court’s
decision. See Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing
Board, 207 A.3d 886, 898 (Pa. 2019) (“Interpretation of the language of an
ordinance presents a question of law for which the standard of review is de
novo and the scope of review is plenary.”)
-4-