Lyons, H. v. Sheriff, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 13, 2026
• Docket: 2565 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Sullivan

Opinion

J-S12028-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

HEATHER LYONS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSEPH SHERIFF, JR. : : Appellant : No. 2565 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s): 2025-30358

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2026

Joseph Sheriff, Jr. (“Sheriff”) appeals pro se from the September 19,

2022, Final Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Order prohibiting Sheriff from

contacting in any way, abusing, stalking, harassing, threatening, or

attempting to use physical force against Heather Lyons (”Ms. Lyons”).

Sheriff and Ms. Lyons shared physical custody of their Child. In

September 2025, the court entered a Final Protection from Abuse Order

prohibiting Sheriff from contact with Ms. Lyons. Sheriff then filed a notice of

appeal.

Before addressing the merit of Sheriff’s issues, we must consider

whether the defects in his brief require dismissal of his appeal. Appellate

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S12028-26

briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in the brief are

“substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.” Id.;

see also Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super.

2017). This Court has stated:

Although 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. 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.

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

(internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

It is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently

developed for our review. See Commonwealth v. Westlake, 295 A.3d

1281, 1286 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2023). Indeed, while we are willing to construe

liberally material filed by a pro se litigant, “any layperson choosing to

represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent,

assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his]

undoing.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa. Super.

1996) (internal citation, quotations, and brackets omitted). An appellate brief

must support its claims with pertinent discussion, references to the record,

and citations to legal authorities. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d

766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id. If a deficient brief hinders

-2- J-S12028-26

this Court’s ability to address any issue on review, the issue will be regarded

as waived. See Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super.

2006) (holding an appellant’s failure to support his claim with factual

background and citations to the record represented “serious deviations from

the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” waiving review

of the claim (citation omitted).

Sheriff’s brief fails to comply with multiple rules of appellate procedure.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) requires the inclusion of,

inter alia, a statement of jurisdiction, the order or determination in question,

the scope and standard of review, statement of questions involved, statement

of the case, summary of the argument, and argument for the appellant. See

generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Sheriff’s brief does not contain: a statement of

jurisdiction (see Pa.R.A.P. 2114), a statement of order or other determination

in question (see Pa.R.A.P. 2115), a statement of both the scope of review and

the standard of review (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)), a statement of the

questions involved (see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4), a statement of the case (see

Pa.R.A.P. 2117), or a summary of argument (see Pa.R.A.P. 2118). Of

greatest importance, Sheriff’s brief is devoid of any references to or discussion

of applicable legal standards, statutes, or case law. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)

(providing the argument shall be followed by the discussion and citation of

pertinent authorities).

-3- J-S12028-26

Given these deficiencies, this Court is unable to meaningfully review the

issues Sheriff purports to raise. Accordingly, Sheriff’s failure to conform with

our appellate rules compels the dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101

(providing that “if the defects . . . in the brief . . . are substantial, the appeal

. . . may be . . . dismissed”).

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 7/13/2026

-4-