J-A18021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FRANCIS KELLY
Appellant No. 1672 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered October 5, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0001777-2016
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2017
Francis Kelly appeals, pro se, from an order,1 entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Kelly was found guilty of the summary
offenses of disorderly conduct2 and public drunkenness and similar
misconduct3 and ordered to pay a $200.00 fine, plus costs. Because of the
deficiencies in Kelly’s brief, we are unable to discern what issues he wishes
to raise or the arguments he wishes to present to this Court. Accordingly,
we dismiss his appeal.
____________________________________________
1
Kelly appeals from the “Order of Court” dated October 5, 2016. That order
adjudged Kelly guilty and imposed his sentence. Therefore, Kelly is
technically appealing from his judgment of sentence.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 5503.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
J-A18021-17
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, 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. We also bring Rule 2111 to Kelly’s attention. That rule
provides:
Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant
(a) General rule. The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the
following matter, 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) Argument for appellant.
(8) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(9) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions
(b) and (c) of this rule.
(10) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
the matters complained of on appeal filed with the
trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment
that no order requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement
was entered.
(b) Opinions below. There shall be appended to the brief a
copy of any opinions delivered by any court or other
government unit below relating to the order or other
determination under review, if pertinent to the questions
involved.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111.
-2-
J-A18021-17
A review of Kelly’s brief evidences almost a complete failure to abide
by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. In fact, his brief consists
of a table of contents, a two-page section titled “Body of Arguement [sic]”
which contains absolutely no citation to authority or the certified record, and
a one-paragraph titled “Opinion” that gives his recitation of the events on
the day he was arrested.
We recognize that Kelly is pro se, however, as noted in
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996):
While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our
supreme court has explained, any layperson choosing to
represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [her] lack of expertise
and legal training will prove [her] undoing.
Id. at 1013 (quoting O’Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682
(Pa. Super. 1989)). The Rivera court concluded that “we decline to become
the appellant’s counsel. When issues are not properly raised and developed
in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for
review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Id. (quoting
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982)).
Recognizing that Kelly has ignored the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure by failing to include most of what the rules require, we conclude
that we are unable to conduct a meaningful review. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
-3-
J-A18021-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2017
-4-
Com. v. Kelly, F.
Combined Opinion