Super, A. v. Pruden, N. ( 2022 )

J-S21017-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ASHLEY N. SUPER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
NICHOLAS PRUDEN :
:
Appellant : No. 2256 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered October 7, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 2020-61637
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Appellant, Nicholas Pruden, appeals pro se from the order of court filed
on October 7, 2020, in which the trial court entered a two-year permanent
Protection from Abuse (“PFA”)1 order against him. Upon review, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal because of Appellant’s failure to conform to
our procedural rules regarding preservation and briefing requirements.
Appellee, Ashley N. Super, filed a complaint seeking a temporary PFA
order on September 28, 2020, after which the trial court entered a temporary
PFA order in her favor and against Appellant. The trial court scheduled a
hearing in the matter on October 7, 2020. After testimony from both parties,
the trial court granted Ms. Super a two-year permanent PFA against Appellant.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See generally 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.
J-S21017-21
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court on November 4,
2020. Appellant, however, filed an untimely concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); therefore, we
remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether circumstances
warranted nunc pro tunc relief. See Super v. Pruden, 2021 WL 5149876(Pa. Super. Nov. 5, 2021) (unpublished memorandum). On remand and after
hearing, the trial court found that Appellant was entitled to nunc pro tunc
relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/21, at 1-2. Accordingly, the trial court
filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on December 16, 2021.
Although Appellant has overcome the procedural hurdle of compliance
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), Appellant has not adhered to the preservation
requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) or the briefing requirements of Pa.R.A.P.
2111. Because Appellant’s noncompliance with these appellate rules has
effectively precluded appellate review, we are constrained to dismiss this
appeal.
Preliminarily, we find that Appellant waived all issues before this Court.
As the trial court correctly noted, Appellant did not raise before the trial court
the issues he ultimately presented within his concise statement. See Trial
Court Opinion, 12/16/21, at 6. Therefore, Appellant waived those issues. See
Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1257 (holding, “because issues not raised
in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,
a 1925(b) [concise] statement can therefore never be used to raise a claim in
-2-
J-S21017-21
the first instance.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are
waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Moreover,
Appellant failed to include a statement of questions involved in his appellate
brief before this Court. We cannot consider claims outside of a statement of
questions involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116 (“No question will be considered
unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby.”). Accordingly, Appellant waived his claims to this Court.
Absent waiver, Appellant’s deficient brief precludes our review. The
Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth mandatory briefing requirements in Rule
2101 and 2111-2119. Briefs filed with this Court must include a jurisdictional
statement, the order in question, statement of the scope and standard of
review, statement of questions involved, statement of the case, summary of
the argument, argument section, conclusion, copy of the statement of errors
complained of on appeal, and certification of compliance. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. The
argument section must develop claims through meaningful discussion
supported by pertinent legal authority and citations to the record. Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(8); Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Additionally, briefs should include a table of
contents and table of citations. Pa.R.A.P. 2174. We may quash or dismiss an
appeal for failure to comply with these briefing requirements. Pa.R.A.P. 2102;
see also Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497-498 (Pa. Super.
2005) (Superior Court may quash or dismiss appeals where non-conforming
briefs have been filed). “Although the Superior Court is willing to liberally
-3-
J-S21017-21
construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special
benefit upon the appellant.” Id. at 498.
The defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial in that it lacks six of the
11 requirements of Rule 2101, a table of contents or table of citations required
by Rule 2174, and numbering per Rule 2173. Appellant’s brief consists
exclusively of a factual recitation coupled with a scant two-page argument
section that neither develops a cognizable argument nor cites pertinent legal
authority or facts within the record. See R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201, 208
(Pa. Super. 2015) (“arguments which are not appropriately developed are
waived”). Accordingly, Appellant’s failure to comply with the appellate briefing
requirements, especially in light of his waiver of issues, precludes meaningful
review by this Court. Thus, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/09/2022
-4-