Com. v. Romanienko, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 196 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S26007-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LISA ANN ROMANIENKO : : Appellant : No. 196 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000065-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 7, 2025

Lisa Ann Romanienko appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County. We quash

this appeal, as Romanienko’s brief is in almost total noncompliance with the

rules related to the form and content of appellate briefs.

Briefly, by way of background, on November 14, 2024, a jury convicted

Romanienko of criminal mischief-damage property,1 defiant trespass—

fenced/enclosed,2 and defiant trespass—actual communication.3 That same

date, the Honorable Jason J. Legg convicted Romanienko of the summary

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304.

2 Id. at § 3503(b)(1)(iii).

3 Id. at § 3503(b)(1)(i). J-S26007-25

charge of criminal trespass.4 On December 4, 2024, the court sentenced

Romanienko to 24 months’ probation, a fine of $50.00, costs in the amount of

$50.00, and restitution in the amount of $6,379.00. Romanienko filed a timely

notice of appeal on February 3, 2025.

Preliminarily, we emphasize that appellate briefs shall materially

conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in a brief are “substantial,” we may quash

or dismiss the appeal. Id. Rule 2111 dictates the contents of an appellant’s

brief.

Here, Romanienko’s brief is wholly inadequate under our rules; it does

not contain a statement of jurisdiction, the order or determination in question,

a coherent statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the

questions involved, a summary of the argument, an argument section, or a

copy of the opinion below. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(4), (6), (8), (10).

Moreover, despite the fact that this is an appeal in a criminal case from a

judgment of sentence, Romanienko’s brief reads as a study on easement law.

Although this Court may liberally construe materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon an appellant.

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251-252 (Pa. Super. 2003).

“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with

citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other

4 Id. at § 3503(b.1)(1)(iii).

-2- J-S26007-25

meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” Umbelina v.

Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011), quoting In re W.H., 25 A.3d

330, 339 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). As in

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 451 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 1982), the defects here

“are not mere matters of form or taste, [but] are the complete absence of

those material sections of the brief [that] facilitate appellate review[,]” such

that “we find our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review severely

impaired.” Id. at 1361.

“This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on

behalf of an appellant.” Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556, 584 (Pa.

Super. 2014) (citation omitted); J.J. DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval Assoc.,

56 A.3d 402, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012). Romanienko’s failure to delineate and

develop issues on appeal with citation to relevant authorities constitutes

waiver. See Irwin Union National Bank and Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d

1099, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining Superior Court will not act as

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of appellant; when

deficiencies in brief hinder our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review,

we may deem certain issues waived); Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.

Super 2006) (explaining arguments not appropriately developed with citation

to relevant authority are waived on appeal). See also Branch Banking and

Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted) (“When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, [or]

when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a

-3- J-S26007-25

Court will not consider the merits thereof.” ). Further, this Court will not

“scour the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote,

189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Because the defects in Romanienko’s brief are substantial, this Court is

precluded from conducting any meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we

quash this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Commonwealth v. Greenwalt, 796

A.2d 996 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/7/2025

-4-