Com. v. Sarvis, T. ( 2016 )

J-A13027-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TASHA SARVIS
Appellant No. 1150 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered March 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No: CP-02-SA-0000304-2014
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 24, 2016
Appellant, Tasha Sarvis, appeals from the judgment of sentence the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on March 24, 2014.
Upon review, we affirm.
The record reveals that on January 10, 2014 Appellant was charged
with the summary offense of driving with an expired driver’s license. On
February 5, 2014, Magisterial District Judge Riazzi found her guilty as
charged and imposed a $200.00 fine plus court costs.
On February 13, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se notice of summary
appeal. Her trial was scheduled for March 24, 2014 before Judge Gallo.
Appellant failed to appear at her trial. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed
the appeal, and judgment was entered on the judgment of the issuing
J-A13027-16
authority pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).1 On July 22, 2015, Appellant
filed a motion for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc. The trial court granted said
motion on July 28, 2015. This appeal followed.
We preliminarily note that Appellant failed to comply with all rules of
appellate briefing. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119. Appellant’s brief indeed is a
one-paragraph letter in which she sets forth her “argument.” “When issues
are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly
inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the
merits thereof.” Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.
Super. 1982) (citations omitted). Here, the defects are so substantial as to
preclude review. Caselaw mandates quashal of the appeal under these
circumstances. Id. at 151. See also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (Failure to “conform in
all material respects with the requirements of these rules” may result in the
quashal or dismissal of appeal if the defects are in the brief and are
substantial.”).
Even if we were not to quash the appeal, Appellant would be entitled
to no relief. When considering a trial court’s decision to dismiss a summary
appeal in which the defendant fails to appear before the court, our standard
of review is limited to finding an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
____________________________________________
1
“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(D).
-2-
J-A13027-16
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013). However,
this Court will reverse a trial court’s dismissal of a summary appeal and
remand for a trial de novo when: (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.
Here, Appellant does not argue she missed the trial for reasons the
trial court failed to consider. In fact, Appellant does not even acknowledge
she failed to appear at her trial, let alone provide an affidavit addressing her
absence at trial.
In light of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial
court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s
summary appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/24/2016
-3-
J-A13027-16
-4-