J-A17021-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JACQUES JEAN LOUIS,
Appellant No. 1492 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-SA-0000845-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 08, 2015
Appellant, Jacques Jean Louis, appeals pro se from the trial court’s
April 14, 2014 order dismissing Appellant’s summary appeal based on his
failure to appear at the trial de novo before the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted by a magisterial district judge of various
traffic offenses, including operation of a motor vehicle without required
financial responsibility, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(f). Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal from the summary conviction. A trial de novo was conducted on
April 14, 2014. Appellant failed to appear at that proceeding and,
consequently, the trial court issued an order dismissing his summary appeal.
Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal with this Court, as well as a
J-A17021-15
timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal.
Herein, Appellant states the following question for our review, which
we reproduce verbatim: “1.on 10-24-14 wheather there were evidence as a
matter of the law to find me the defendant guilty who was unavailable to
testify and show any evidence at traial.i was fined 700 dollars and license
revoked for something I had which was insurance and paper work for the
car.” Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unnumbered). In the section of Appellant’s brief
labeled “[A]rgument,” he provides the following two sentences, again set
forth verbatim: “the reviewing court must evaluate the sufficiency upon the
entire trial record ,the standard od review is that the evidence must be read
in light most favorableto the state .the evidence was there jacques jean louis
had insurance and all paper work to the rental care.” Id. at 5
(unnumbered).
Initially, we note that Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. On this basis alone, we could
dismiss his appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (stating that briefs shall conform
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, if the defects in a brief are
substantial, we may quash or dismiss the appeal). We could also deem
Appellant’s issue – apparently, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
– waived based on his undeveloped argument. See Commonwealth v.
Snyder, 870 A.2d 336, 342 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“Undeveloped claims are
waived.”) (citation omitted). However, because Appellant’s claim is
-2-
J-A17021-15
relatively straightforward, and we are able to conduct a meaningful review of
his case, we will overlook Appellant’s errors in these regards.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he
failed to secure or maintain financial responsibility coverage for the vehicle
he was operating when ticketed by police. However, because the trial court
dismissed Appellant’s summary appeal for failure to appear, our review of
this case is limited to the propriety of the court’s dismissal. See
Commonwealth v. Eyiwunmi Akinsanmi, 55 A.3d 539, 540 (Pa. Super.
2012).
Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction
following de novo trial is whether there was an error of law or
whether the findings of the court are supported by the record.
Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249, 251 (Pa. Super.
2002). The trial court's verdict will only be disturbed if there was
a manifest abuse of discretion. Id.
Id.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 governs de novo trials
following the appeal of a summary conviction. That rule states, in pertinent
part:
Rule 462. Trial De Novo
(A) When a defendant appeals after the entry of a guilty
plea or a conviction by an issuing authority in any
summary proceeding, upon the filing of the transcript and
other papers by the issuing authority, the case shall be
heard de novo by the judge of the court of common pleas
sitting without a jury.
***
-3-
J-A17021-15
(D) If the defendant fails to appear, the trial judge may
dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the court of
common pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 462.
The Comment to Rule 462 explains that “[p]aragraph (D) makes
it clear that the trial judge may dismiss a summary case appeal
when the judge determines that the defendant is absent without
cause from the trial de novo.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 462, cmt. Therefore,
before a summary appeal may be dismissed for failure to
appear, the trial court must ascertain whether the absentee
defendant had adequate cause for his absence. See
Commonwealth v. Akinsanmi, 55 A.3d 539, 540–41 (Pa.
Super. 2012). In the event that good cause is established, the
defendant is entitled to a new summary trial. See Marizzaldi,
814 A.2d at 251, 253; Commonwealth v. Doleno, 406
Pa.Super. 286, 594 A.2d 341, 343 (1991).
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In Dixon, we declared that a new trial de novo must be granted
where,
(1) a trial court dismisses a summary appeal without considering
whether the absentee defendant had cause to justify the
absence; and (2) the absentee defendant presents an affidavit
on appeal that (assuming the assertions delineated in the
affidavit are true) presents at least a prima facie demonstration
that cause existed for the absence, rendering that absence
involuntary.
Id. at 797 (emphasis added).
In this case, the certified record does not contain a transcript of the
April 14, 2014 trial de novo and, therefore, we cannot determine if the trial
court considered whether Appellant had cause to justify his absence.
Nevertheless, even assuming the court did not conduct this analysis,
Appellant is still not entitled to a new trial. Appellant has not presented this
Court with an affidavit explaining why he was not present at the trial de
-4-
J-A17021-15
novo. Indeed, at no point in his brief to this Court does he provide any
explanation for his absence. Accordingly, the court did not err in dismissing
Appellant’s summary appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2015
-5-