Opinion
J-A23026-16 No. 1926 WDA 2015
08-19-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAKEYA SABRINA ALLEN-JACKSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered September 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-SA-0001514-2015 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Jakeya Sabrina Allen-Jackson, appeals from the judgment of sentence the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on September 23, 2015, following her retail theft conviction. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal.
Appellant filed a pro se brief that does not conform to our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant's brief is one page in length and merely provides - in four sentences - her version of the facts underlying the criminal prosecution. Appellant provides no legal analysis, and does not set forth any questions for our review. The brief further provides no citations to the record or to any legal authority. While we are mindful that Appellant is proceeding pro se, pro se representation does not relieve Appellant of her duty to properly raise and develop her claims. In this case, even a liberal construction of Appellant's brief cannot remedy these inadequacies. Since the substantial defects in Appellant's brief preclude us from conducting meaningful judicial review, we are constrained to dismiss the instant appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2101 ("[I]f the defects are in the brief . . . of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal . . . may be dismissed[.]"); Commonwealth v. Sanford , 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa. Super. 1982) (declining to address merits of appeal because the brief was "so defective as to preclude effective, appellate review").
Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/19/2016