Com. v. Allen-Jackson, J. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-A23026-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    JAKEYA SABRINA ALLEN-JACKSON
    Appellant                 No. 1926 WDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered September 23, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
    Criminal Division at No: CP-02-SA-0001514-2015
    BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:                      FILED AUGUST 19, 2016
    Appellant, Jakeya Sabrina Allen-Jackson, appeals from the judgment of
    sentence the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on
    September 23, 2015, following her retail theft conviction. For the reasons
    stated below, we dismiss the appeal.
    Appellant filed a pro se brief that does not conform to our Rules of
    Appellate Procedure.        Appellant’s brief is one page in length and merely
    provides – in four sentences - her version of the facts underlying the
    criminal prosecution. Appellant provides no legal analysis, and does not set
    forth any questions for our review. The brief further provides no citations to
    the record or to any legal authority. While we are mindful that Appellant is
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-A23026-16
    proceeding pro se, pro se representation does not relieve Appellant of her
    duty to properly raise and develop her claims. In this case, even a liberal
    construction of Appellant’s brief cannot remedy these inadequacies.         Since
    the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief preclude us from conducting
    meaningful judicial review, we are constrained to dismiss the instant appeal.
    See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief . . . of the
    appellant   and     are   substantial,   the   appeal    .    .   .   may     be
    dismissed[.]”);   Commonwealth v. Sanford, 
    445 A.2d 149
    , 151 (Pa.
    Super. 1982) (declining to address merits of appeal because the brief was
    “so defective as to preclude effective, appellate review”).
    Appeal dismissed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/19/2016
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1926 WDA 2015

Filed Date: 8/19/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/19/2016