Com. v. Soronen, L. ( 2016 )

J-S66036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAURENCE J. SORONEN
Appellant No. 300 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 27, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-SA-0000307-2015
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 04, 2016
Laurence J. Soronen (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas on January 27,
2016, following the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal. After
careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the procedural and factual history of this
matter as follows:
On May 25, 2015, Appellant was cited pursuant to 75
Pa.C.S. § 3362(a)(2) for travelling 75 miles per hour in a posted
55 miles per hour zone. The citation was formally filed on May
27, 2015. Appellant pled not guilty.
On June 1, 2015, notice was sent to Appellant for the
summary trial before Magisterial District Judge Richard Thomas
(MDJ) scheduled for July 1, 2015. On June 5, 2015, Appellant
sent a letter to the MDJ requesting a continuance of the trial. A
second letter was sent by Appellant on June 9, 2015, with the
same request. The letter indicates that Appellant had been
advised by the clerk of the MDJ that discovery is not provided in
J-S66036-16
advance of summary conviction trials. On June 22, 2015,
Appellant sent an “affidavit” to the MDJ requesting discovery.
On June 29, 2015, the summary trial was continued to
September 1, 2015. On July 29, 2015, Appellant sent a letter to
the MDJ requesting that the charges be dismissed. On August
26, 2015, Appellant sent a letter to the MDJ requesting that the
charges be dismissed, or alternatively that the summary trial
again be continued.
On September 1, 2015, [A]ppellant was found guilty in
absentia by the MDJ. Appellant filed a [n]otice of [a]ppeal on
September 11, 2015. On September 29, 2015, the case was
transferred to the Court of Common Pleas and scheduled for a
[s]ummary [c]onviction [a]ppeal hearing on November 25,
2015.
On October 20, 2015, Appellant sent a letter to the
Honorable Harry M. Ness requesting dismissal of the charges.
Judge Ness denied Appellant’s request and a letter was
forwarded to Appellant from the Judge’s law clerk advising
Appellant of the impropriety of Appellant’s ex parte
communications with the Court. The case was reassigned to the
Honorable Michael E. Bortner.
On November 23, 2015, Appellant sent a letter to Judge
Bortner requesting a dismissal of charges or a continuance of the
[s]ummary [c]onviction [a]ppeal hearing. The District Attorney
advised Appellant by letter dated December 1, 2015, that
discovery is not provided in summary cases. The case was
reassigned to the [trial court] for the summary conviction appeal
session scheduled for November 25, 2015. On November 25,
2015, Appellant failed to appear. [The trial court], by Order
dated and filed November 25, 2015, granted Appellant one
continuance to December 30, 2015, and advised Appellant that
court personnel and county employees were prohibited from
providing Appellant with legal advice. (Appellant’s
correspondence had become quite voluminous.)
On December 8, 2015, the Commonwealth requested a
continuance of the summary conviction appeal hearing because
of the unavailability of the affiant. On December 11, 2015, [the
trial court] granted the Commonwealth one continuance and re-
scheduled the hearing for January 27, 2016.
-2-
J-S66036-16
On December 14, 2015, Appellant forwarded to [the trial
court] directly a “Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Supporting
Affidavit”. The documents were forwarded by the Court to the
Clerk of Court’s office for official filing.
On December 29, 2015, [the trial court] received an
improper ex parte communication from Appellant regarding plea
negotiations between Appellant and the Commonwealth. [The
trial court] gave no consideration to Appellant’s communication.
On January 7, 2016, [the trial court] denied Appellant’s
Motion to Dismiss. On January 15, 2016, [the trial court]
received an improper ex parte communication from Appellant
requesting [the trial court] to recuse, again discussing plea
negotiations between Appellant and the Commonwealth and
citing Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to MDJ proceedings in
support of his request to conclude the process via United States
mail.
On January 27, 2016, Appellant failed to appear for the
summary conviction appeal hearing. Pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure No. 462(D), Appellant’s appeal was
dismissed and the judgment of the MDJ became final. No
explanation was provided by Appellant for his failure to appear.
The [trial c]ourt can glean from his prior correspondence (and
Appellant’s later-filed Concise Statement of Matters Complained
of [On Appeal]) that Appellant is under the belief that the
distance he lives from the judicial center in York, Pennsylvania,
warrants a special exception that would excuse his appearance.
Appellant sent a letter to [the trial court], dated February
1, 2016, requesting further action by [the trial court]. [The trial
court’s] law clerk responded to Appellant by letter dated
February 5, 2016, indicating [the trial court] would not respond
directly to his correspondence and providing Appellant with a
reminder regarding the deadline to file a Notice of Appeal.
Appellant filed a [n]otice of [a]ppeal on February 12, 2016.
[The trial court’s] [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [o]rder was filed on
February 16, 2016. Appellant’s Statement of Matters
Complained of was filed on March 11, 2016, three days late.[1]
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement reads as follows:
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S66036-16
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Defendant-Appellant files the following concise statement of
matters complained of on the appeal in the above matter,
pursuant to the direction issued by the Honorable Maria Musti-
Cook, on February 16, 2016, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b):
1. Trial De Novo in Court of Common Pleas (Court) on a
speeding citation was scheduled for January 27, 2016.
2. On January 20, 2016, after his motion to dismiss the citation
was denied, [Appellant] submitted an affidavit to the [c]ourt
and the District Attorney appearing and reaffirming his plea of
not guilty and voluntarily and knowingly waiving his right to
be present at the trial de novo (see Commonwealth v.
Vega, 553 Pa. 255 [1998]).
3. [Appellant] further demanded in his affidavit that the
Commonwealth be put to its proof at trial on January 27,
2016 since, upon information and belief, no non-hearsay
proof of [Appellant’s] guilt was offered or received at the
Magistrate’s Court (see 234 Pa. Code 462).
4. [Appellant] was unable to be personally present at traffic
offense trial because he works and resides nearly 300 miles
from the courthouse.
5. Despite [Appellant’s] sworn plea of not guilty, his sworn
knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be present at
trial and his sworn demand that the Commonwealth prove
[his] guilt at trial on January 27, 2016 by non-hearsay
evidence, the [c]ourt failed and refused to hold a trial and
instead found [Appellant] “guilty,” without benefit of
admissible proof, because he allegedly “failed to appear.”
6. Despite the [c]ourt’s knowledge that [Appellant] had
vigorously asserted that he was not guilty and had vigorously
defended against the speeding charge, and despite
[Appellant’s] knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be
present at trial, and demanded that the trial be conducted in
his absence and the people put to their proof, the [c]ourt
ignored [Appellant’s] rights and found [Appellant] “guilty”
because [he] purportedly “failed to appear.”
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S66036-16
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed April 1, 2016 (“1925(a)
Opinion”), pp. 2-6.
Appellant argues the trial court improperly dismissed his summary
conviction appeal pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D) after he failed to appear
for the scheduled trial de novo.2 This claim lacks merit.
Our standard of review of a trial court’s dismissal of a summary
conviction appeal for failure of a party to appear,
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
7. The Commonwealth has never, upon information and belief,
offered, nor has the [c]ourt admitted, any non-hearsay
evidence showing that [Appellant] is guilty of the speeding
charge, in either the Magistrate Court or the Court of
Common Pleas.
8. The Court of Common Pleas committed prejudicial error in
finding [Appellant] guilty, without holding a trial or accepting
non-hearsay evidence and in refusing to acknowledge
[Appellant’s] sworn appearance, sworn plea of not guilty and
sworn knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be present
at trial.
9. [Appellant] requests reversal of the [o]rder and dismissal of
the citation or, alternatively, scheduling of a new trial.
Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, filed March 11, 2016, pp. 1-2.
2
We recognize the technical deficiencies in Appellant’s brief and
acknowledge the Commonwealth’s argument that such deficiencies should
result in waiver of Appellant’s issues. See Commonwealth’s Brief, pp. 14-
17. However, while Appellant failed to strictly comply with the mandates of
Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2111, and 2117, we decline to find waiver because the
argument presented in his brief and the Commonwealth’s response thereto
leave this Court with little difficulty ascertaining the nature of Appellant’s
claim.
-5-
J-S66036-16
is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law
and whether the findings of the trial court are supported by
competent evidence. The adjudication of the trial court will not
be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an
appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but
requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly
erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa.Super.2013) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 governs de novo trials
following the appeal of a summary conviction and provides, in pertinent part,
as follows:
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.
*****
(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.
“Paragraph (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. This
Court has found dismissal appropriate under Rule 462 where a defendant
attempted to appear but originally presented to the wrong location, and then
-6-
J-S66036-16
was unable to timely appear in the correct location because the defendant
claimed that he followed erroneous directions of third parties. See Dixon,
66 A.3d at 798.
Here, Appellant was found guilty in absentia after failing to appear
before the Magisterial District Judge for a scheduled trial. 3 After appealing
the summary conviction, and requesting and being granted a continuance,
Appellant failed to appear at the summary conviction appeal hearing, his
trial de novo. The trial judge discussed on the record that the court had
received no notice from Appellant that he would be late for the hearing, was
detained by unforeseen circumstances, or otherwise would not be able to
attend as scheduled. N.T. 1/27/2016, p. 5. To excuse his absence,
Appellant states that he resides and works nearly 300 miles from the
courthouse. See Appellant’s Brief, p. 10 (pagination supplied). Such an
explanation represents neither good cause, nor an involuntary absence, nor
an unforeseen circumstance. Commonwealth v. Eyiwunmi Akinsanmi,
55 A.3d 539, 541 (Pa.Super.2012) (attendance at conference neither
excused nor unforeseen absence justifying failure to appear for hearing).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
3
The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure allow Magisterial District
Judges to conduct summary criminal trials in the defendant’s absence and
then provide notice of a resulting conviction, sentence, and appeal rights to
the defendant via first class mail. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 455(A) & (D).
-7-
J-S66036-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/4/2016
-8-