J-S64043-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAMONT BOLDEN
Appellant No. 157 EDA 2011
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 20, 2010
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012129-2010
BEFORE: STABILE, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016
Appellant Lamont Bolden appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the trial
court convicted Appellant of possession of a small amount of marijuana.1
For the following reasons, we affirm.
On March 6, 2009, Appellant was arrested and charged with
possession of a controlled substance2 and possession of a small amount of
marijuana. His case was listed for trial in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court.
Appellant filed a suppression motion in the Municipal Court on September
27, 2010. After a hearing, the Honorable Joseph O’Neill of the Municipal
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).
2
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64043-16
Court denied the motion to suppress. The same day, Judge O’Neill held a
stipulated bench trial, convicted Appellant of both charges, and imposed an
aggregate sentence of sixty days incarceration.
Appellant appealed and chose to request a trial de novo in the Court of
Common Pleas. The Commonwealth withdrew the charge of possessing a
controlled substance. On December 20, 2010, Judge Robert P. Coleman
held a bench trial at which Appellant again stipulated to the record made at
the Municipal Court suppression hearing. Judge Coleman convicted
Appellant of possession of a small amount of marijuana and sentenced
Appellant to thirty days probation and fifty hours of community service. This
timely appeal followed.
The sole issue Appellant raises on appeal is whether the lower court
erred in denying his suppression motion. The Commonwealth argues that
Appellant waived this claim on appeal as he failed to raise it before the Court
of Common Pleas after his trial de novo.
Upon a conviction in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, an appellant has
two options to proceed on appeal: a defendant may 1) request a trial de
novo or 2) file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Common
Pleas. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1118–19 (Pa.Super.
2011) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006) (some citations omitted). “A trial de novo
gives the defendant a new trial without reference to the Municipal Court
record; a petition for writ of certiorari asks the Common Pleas Court to
review the record made in the Municipal Court.” Commonwealth v.
-2-
J-S64043-16
Beaufort, 112 A.3d 1267, 1269 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204, 207 n. 2 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
In Beaufort, this Court found that the defendant waived his desired claim
for purposes of appellate review as he first raised the issue in a pre-trial
motion in the Municipal Court but failed to raise it again before the Court of
Common Pleas in his trial de novo. We held that when a defendant is
afforded a trial de novo, any matter pertaining to the proceedings before the
magistrate are rendered irrelevant. Beaufort, 112 A.3d at 1269 (citing
Commonwealth v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)).
In the same manner, Appellant filed a suppression motion before the
Municipal Court, which was denied. After electing to proceed to a trial de
novo in the Court of Common Pleas, Appellant failed to raise his suppression
challenge before the trial court. Appellant’s failure to preserve the issue
below results in waiver of the claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal”).
For the foregoing reason, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S64043-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/2016
-4-