In Re: Weathers, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 11, 2026
• Docket: 1089 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Ford Elliott

Opinion

J-A15035-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LIONEL LAMONT WEATHERS : : Appellant : No. 1089 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 9, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-SA-0000111-2025

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., LANE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 11, 2026

Lionel Lamont Weathers appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his summary conviction of driving a vehicle without rear

lighting. See 75 Pa.C.S. 4303(b). Weathers was found guilty after a trial de

novo and was sentenced to the reimposition of the costs, fines, and penalties

that had been initially assessed by the magisterial district court, amounting to

$330.15. See Sentence Order, 7/9/25; Praecipe to Enter Judgment, 7/9/25.

We dismiss the appeal due to Weathers’s failure to comply with the Rules of

Appellate Procedure, deviations of which have meaningfully impeded our

review of this appeal.

In his fifty-six-page brief before this Court, Weathers raises eleven

issues. See Appellant’s Brief at 6-7. Nevertheless, despite his brief’s length, ____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A15035-26

Weathers fails to provide any sort of cogent, relevant, and supported legal

analysis, rendering this Court incapable of conducting proper review. Instead,

his brief is written in outline format, replete with innumerable incomplete

sentences, irrelevant or unexplained citations to various authorities, and red

herrings that have nothing to do with this Court’s review of his adjudication of

guilt for one summary offense.

Specifically, Weathers materially fails to comply with Pennsylvania Rule

of Appellate Procedure 2119 insofar as the argument portion of his brief does

not provide any references to the record nor does it contain any indication as

to where, and how, some of the issues he purports to raise on appeal have

been preserved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c), (e). Conversely, the Commonwealth

has pointed out that “[m]yriad claims by [Weathers] are subject to waiver

because of [his] failure to raise the issues at trial.” Commonwealth’s Brief at

13.

Although Weathers is a pro se party, he is required to adhere to our

procedural rules. See Norman for Estate of Shearlds v. Temple Univ.

Health Sys., 208 A.3d 1115, 1118-19 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“Although this Court

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

confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, 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.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Hoover v.

Davila, 862 A.2d 591, 595-96 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“A pro se litigant is not

-2- J-A15035-26

absolved from complying with procedural rules.”). Moreover, it is axiomatic

that we must be able to discern the thrust of an argument to provide

substantive review of the same. Nevertheless, Weathers has failed to provide

the requisite clarity necessary for our corresponding analysis. Simply put,

given the total lack of record support, ambiguous citations to a seemingly

haphazard array of case law, and disjunct, largely phrase-based writing style

of the brief, none of Weathers’s arguments have been developed in a manner

capable of appellate review. Cf. Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362,

371–72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (“When an appellant fails to develop his

issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is

waived.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss Weathers’s appeal in its entirety where the

substantial defects in his brief have materially hampered our substantive

review of the merits of his claims.1

We direct the prothonotary to strike this appeal from the June 24, 2026

argument list.

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list. Application for

continuance of oral argument denied as moot.

____________________________________________

1 On June 5, 2026, Weathers filed an application seeking continuance of the

scheduled oral argument on this appeal. Nevertheless, as we are dismissing this appeal, any continuance of oral argument predicated thereon is necessarily rendered moot.

-3- J-A15035-26

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/11/2026

-4-