Com. v. Kichman, J., Jr.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 1664 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A15037-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN WESLEY KICHMAN, JR. : : Appellant : No. 1664 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-SA-0000142-2024

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JULY 17, 2025

Appellant, John Wesley Kitchman, Jr., appeals from the order entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on November 4, 2024.

Upon review, we quash Appellant’s appeal for the reasons set forth below.

Briefly, on June 10, 2023, Appellant was involved in a single-vehicle

crash. He was the driver and sole occupant of a truck which overturned on its

side and tore down power lines. HJ Towing and Recovery was contacted by

the police to tow and store the vehicle. HJ provided Appellant with an invoice,

but Appellant failed to pay HJ or retrieve the vehicle from their lot for more

than ten months. The police issued Appellant a citation for violation of 75

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A15037-25

Pa.C.S.A. § 3712(b), abandonment of vehicles on public or private property,

on April 19, 2024.

On November 4, 2024, following a trial de novo in an appeal from

summary proceedings, Appellant was found guilty of the sole charge. In

addition to costs and a fine, the trial court imposed restitution in the amount

of $30,923.50 to HJ. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on November

12, 2024, and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on

November 20, 2024. The trial court filed its 1925(a) opinion on January 10,

2025. This appeal follows.

Initially, we note that appellate briefs must materially conform to the

requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P.

2101. If the defects in the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter

may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:

[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1 (Pa.Super. 1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. Id. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform with the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id., Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014).

“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. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with

-2- J-A15037-25

references to the record and with citations to legal authorities.”

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations

omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments

on behalf of an appellant.” Id. (citation omitted).

Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 requires an

appellant to include in his brief an argument section which

shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The argument section must also contain citations to legal

authority and must reference the pleadings, evidence, or any other matter

appearing in the record to support the arguments set forth. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b),

(c).

Here, Appellant’s brief has a fatal defect; he failed to include an

argument section. His conclusion section immediately follows his summary of

argument section. By omitting his argument, he also failed to include any

citations to pertinent legal authority or relevant citations to the record.

Appellant alleges eight errors made by “the Commonwealth Court,”1 but failed

to include an argument section distinctly addressing each issue. Appellant

1 Appellant’s proceedings took place in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. The Courts of Common Pleas are distinct from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

-3- J-A15037-25

instead followed each question presented with several sentences detailing his

challenge and position.2 This does not suffice as an argument under Rule

2119.

While we are sympathetic to Appellant’s position, it is well settled that

a pro se appellant is not entitled to any advantage due to their lack of legal

training, and must comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(stating that “any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding

must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal

training will be his undoing.”). The defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial

and preclude meaningful review. Accordingly, we quash the appeal.

2 Our rules state that each question “shall be followed by an answer stating simply whether the court or government unit agreed, disagreed, did not answer, or did not address the question.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (emphasis added). Appellant also failed to comply with this rule.

-4- J-A15037-25

Appeal quashed.

Judge Bowes joins this memorandum.

Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/17/2025

-5-