Com. v. Mayo, J.
This text of Com. v. Mayo, J. (Com. v. Mayo, J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S12015-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOY TRINETTE MAYO : : Appellant : No. 2225 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 26, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-SA-0000065-2023
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2024
Appellant, Joy Mayo, appeals pro se from the July 26, 2023 judgment of
sentence entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas following her
conviction for Operating a Vehicle without Inspection.1 Appellant claims that
she was not issued a summons, was not properly issued a citation, and was
unable to present evidence in her defense. After careful review, we dismiss
this appeal due to the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief.
A.
A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary for our
disposition. Briefly, on February 24, 2023, following a traffic stop, Officer
Kylie Tausenfreundt of the Pocono Township Police Department determined
that Appellant’s vehicle lacked a valid inspection. On March 12, 2023, Officer
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S. § 4703(a). J-S12015-24
Tausenfreundt issued Appellant a written citation. On March 30, 2023,
Appellant pleaded not guilty in the Magisterial District Court. On May 10,
2024, the magistrate found Appellant guilty and imposed a fine and costs
totaling $168.70.2
The next day, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas. The trial court scheduled Appellant’s summary appeal hearing for July
20, 2023, at 10 AM. On July 20th, the court dismissed Appellant’s appeal
because she had not appeared by 10:43 AM. The court imposed the same
sentence as the Magisterial District Court.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues in her Statement of Questions
Presented:
I. Citation issuance. Was Appellant issued a citation under proper procedure?
II. Mistakes made by the Court(s) below. Unheard facts and evidence that were not produced at any trial or hearing in this matter be, heard. [sic] Id. 48,49 docketing statement[.] Was Appellant excluded from producing relevant evidence?
Appellant’s Br. at 5 (renumbered).3 ____________________________________________
2 According to Appellant, the court found her guilty in absentia because she
“arrived untimely” for this hearing. Appellant’s Br. at 7.
3 Appellant raised a third issue: “The Appellant’s sanction and conviction. Was the fine and conviction appropriate despite Appellant never being issued, properly, a summons?” However, Appellant failed to raise this claim in her (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2- J-S12015-24
B.
Appellant argues that Officer Tausenfreundt failed to follow the proper
procedure when issuing her citation. Appellant’s Br. at 10-11. She also
maintains that she “has not been heard in any trial [or] hearing” in this case,
and therefore could not present evidence of this alleged procedural error. Id.
at 11.
The trial court found that the citation was issued properly and
determined that Appellant’s entry of a not guilty plea belies her assertion that
she did not receive a citation. Trial Ct. Op., 11/21/23, at 1. The court also
noted that it dismissed Appellant’s summary appeal because she failed to
appear. Id.
*
Preliminarily, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all
material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also id. at 2114–2119
(addressing specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). “[I]t
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
references to the record and with citations to legal authorities.”
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a)-(c); remaining citations omitted). Additionally, the ____________________________________________
Rule 1925(b) Statement and, thus, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the [s]tatement. . .are waived.”).
-3- J-S12015-24
Argument section of the brief “shall be divided into as many parts as there are
questions to be argued[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants,
an appellant’s pro se status does not relieve her of the obligation to follow the
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739,
766 (Pa. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498
(Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that pro se litigant must “assume that [her] lack
of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.”). “We shall not develop
an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence
to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super.
2018). When an appellant fails to develop an argument sufficiently to permit
meaningful review, we may dismiss the appeal or find that issue waived.
Hardy, 918 A.2d at 771; Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing
defects may result in dismissal of appeal); see also Commonwealth v.
B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding issue waived where
the appellant failed to cite any pertinent authority to support his argument).
Here, Appellant’s argument section is substantially underdeveloped,
and, thus, precludes meaningful appellate review. First, she has failed to
address each issue raised under a separate heading as required by Rule
2119(a) and, instead, combines her arguments—that Officer Tausenfreundt
failed to follow the proper citation procedure and that the court improperly
prevented her from presenting evidence—into one section.
-4- J-S12015-24
More importantly, Appellant has failed to provide citation to relevant
legal authority4 to support either of her arguments. She, thus, has failed to
apply the law to the facts of this case in a coherent manner as required by our
Rules of Appellate Procedure and case law. B.D.G., 959 A.2d at 371–72;
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Accordingly, she has not provided a cogent argument
establishing how the trial court erred in finding that the citation was issued
properly or in dismissing her appeal once she failed to appear.
In sum, Appellant’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure
preclude this Court’s meaningful review. It is not the role of this Court to
develop an appellant’s legal argument. Milby, 189 A.3d at 1079. Accordingly,
we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Date: 6/6/2024
4 The only authority Appellant cites in support of her argument is Pa.R.Crim.P.
1002. Appellant’s Br. at 11.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Mayo, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-mayo-j-pasuperct-2024.