Com. v. Truskowski, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A01044-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOANNE TRUSKOWSKI, Appellant No. 780 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered March 3, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-SA-0003010-2013 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE and ALLEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2014 Joanne Truskowski (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order quashing her summary appeal from her cruelty to animals conviction, which included the forfeiture of her dog. Upon review, we agree with the Commonwealth that no “discernable issues for appellate review have been raised in appellant’s ‘brief’ which in no way comports with the appellate rules.” Commonwealth Brief at 3. We therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. We initially note that Appellant’s pro se status does not excuse her complete failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally, Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (pro se status confers no special benefit upon an appellant). Pa.R.A.P. 2101 provides: J-A01044-15 Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these 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. Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (emphasis added). Pa.R.A.P. 2111 requires that the brief of the appellant contain eleven (11) separately entitled sections, including a statement of jurisdiction, order in question, statement of the scope and standard of review, statement of the questions involved, statement of the case, summary of argument, argument, short conclusion, and opinions and pleadings relating to the order under review. Here, Appellant’s brief contains none of the required sections, and consists of photocopied supporting documentation to a two-page letter titled “Application for Relief.” By order dated July 16, 2014, this Court stated: [A]s Appellant has informed this Court’s prothonotary that the “application” is her brief, the following is hereby ORDERED: The prothonotary is directed to accept and file the instant “application” as Appellant’s Brief. In her two-page “Application for Relief”/Brief, Appellant does not develop any legal argument for our review; rather, Appellant requests the return of her dog. Given these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. Order affirmed. Case stricken from the January 7, 2015 argument list. Jurisdiction relinquished. -2- J-A01044-15 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2014 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
