J-S08010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ASHLEY MCBRYDE
Appellant No. 822 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: MD 2261-2015
BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2016
Appellant, Ashley McBryde, appeals pro se from the order the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on May 13, 2015 dismissing her
petition to appeal nunc pro tunc a summary conviction. We affirm.
According to the pleadings, Appellant was found guilty of the summary
offense of driving without a license on September 10, 2009.1 Appellant filed
a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc from said conviction on April 29, 2015.
On the same day, the trial court entered an order setting a hearing on the
petition for May 13, 2015. On the day set for the hearing, Appellant failed to
appear. As a result, the trial court dismissed the petition. Specifically, the
trial court noted that it denied the petition due to Appellant’s failure to
____________________________________________
1
Appeals from a summary conviction must be filed within 30 days of the
entry of the guilty plea or conviction. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 460.
J-S08010-16
attend the hearing and her failure to provide an excuse for her absence. On
appeal, Appellant argues she had an emergency preventing her from
attending the hearing and that she called the chambers of the presiding
judge to inform the court of the situation. Appellant also argues she never
had a chance to challenge the conviction because she was unaware of the
summary conviction and because of her inability to attend the nunc pro tunc
hearing.
In an appeal from the denial of a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc, this
Court has stated our standard of review as follows:
[A]llowance of appeal nunc pro tunc is within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and our scope of review of a decision
of whether to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc is limited to a
determination of whether the trial court has abused its discretion
or committed an error of law. Orders granting or denying [a]
petition to appeal nunc pro tunc are reversible [only] in
instances where the court abused its discretion or where the
court drew an erroneous legal conclusion.
Commonwealth v. Yohe, 641 A.2d 1210, 1211 (Pa. Super. 1994) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original).
Here, Appellant did not file an appeal within 30 days of her conviction.
Therefore, the only way Appellant could attack the conviction was obtaining
relief through a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc.
A party seeking leave to appeal from a summary conviction nunc
pro tunc has the burden of demonstrating two things: (1) that
the delay in filing his appeal was caused by extraordinary
circumstances involving fraud or a wrongful or negligent act of a
court official resulting in injury to that party and (2) that upon
learning of the existence of the grounds relied upon for nunc pro
tunc relief, he acted promptly to seek such relief.
-2-
J-S08010-16
Id. at 1212 (citation omitted).
In the instant case, the trial court never had the opportunity to
address whether Appellant met the above requirements because Appellant
failed to appear at the nunc pro tunc hearing,2 and consequently failed to
explain her basis for nunc pro tunc relief. Because Appellant failed to
provide any fact on the record, we are constrained to agree with the trial
court that Appellant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s petition for nunc pro tunc
relief. See Yohe, supra.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
2
Appellant states she was unable to attend the hearing due an emergency
involving her son. Appellant’s Brief at 4. There is no record of a request for
a continuance by Appellant, nor any evidence of the alleged emergency.
Again, on this record, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that
Appellant failed to provide an excuse for absence at the hearing on her
petition.
-3-
J-S08010-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/12/2016
-4-