Hepler, S. v. Alcibiade, K.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 733 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A29005-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

SARAH L. HEPLER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : KEITH J. ALCIBIADE : : Appellant : No. 733 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-0320-CIVIL

BEFORE: OLSON, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: December 9, 2024

Appellant, Keith J. Alcibiade, appeals pro se from the final, May 16, 2024

order, entered under the Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 6101-6122. We dismiss this appeal.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural

posture of this case:

On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff [Sarah L. Hepler (“Plaintiff”)] filed a [PFA petition] against [Appellant], her ex-boyfriend. She asserted that during a March 9, 2024 incident where she and [Appellant] were exchanging custody of a dog, [Appellant] opened Plaintiff’s car door and threatened her. The two then began tussling over possession of the dog. Plaintiff also asserted that afterwards, [Appellant] sent her harassing e-mails and texts. [Appellant] had informed her many times that if she ever left him or took the dog, he would kill himself, and that when she and [Appellant] were together, he had threatened to harm her. Plaintiff claimed that she was scared [Appellant] would harm himself or others and [that Appellant] would be very angry if his guns [were] taken. J-A29005-24

The [trial] court granted a temporary PFA [order] and [scheduled] a hearing for [a later date].

The [trial] court held a hearing for a final PFA order on May 16, 2024, during which both parties appeared with counsel. The [trial] court heard testimony from both parties, and entered a final PFA order [that day].

Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/24, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. However, within Appellant’s

brief to this Court, Appellant failed to support his argument with any citation

to the record or pertinent discussion of why the underlying facts of this case

entitle him to relief. See Appellant’s Brief at 1-17. As we have held: “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

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. Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability

to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely

or find certain issues to be waived.” Id. (citations omitted).

The procedural and substantive defects in Appellant's brief completely

preclude meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gould,

912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[f]ailing to provide factual background

and citation to the record represents serious deviations from the briefing

requirements of the Rules of Appellant Procedure [and] . . . impedes on our

-2- J-A29005-24

ability to address the issue on appeal”) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). As such, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[b]riefs and

reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the

requirements of [our] rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular

case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in

the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal

or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); see also Commonwealth

v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[a]lthough this Court

is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status

generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se

litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania

Rules of the Court”).

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Oral argument scheduled

for December 17, 2024, cancelled.

DATE: 12/09/2024

-3-