Com. v. Moyer, J., Jr. ( 2022 )

J-S21030-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOSEPH N. MOYER, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1452 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 8, 2021,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000069-2020.
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2022
Joseph N. Moyer, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence, imposing
14 to 48 months’ incarceration. For the reasons below, we affirm.
On September 25, 2019, the police arrested Moyer for driving under the
influence.1 The trial court appointed Douglas J. Keating, Esq. to defend him.
Shortly thereafter, the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Pursuant to In re:
General Statewide Judicial Emergency, March 18, 2020 Order, Nos. 531
& 532 JAD (Pa. 2020), the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
continued all jury trials indefinitely.
When conditions started to improve, the trial court scheduled voir dire
in this case for July 2020. “However, due to the constantly changing COVID-
19-infection rates, public-gathering restrictions, and infection-control
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(D)(1)(ii). This appeal involves procedural issues.
As such, we do not discuss the events that led to Moyer’s arrest.
J-S21030-22
guidance at that time, the court’s multiple attempts to schedule and conduct
jury trials during the summer of 2020 were thwarted.” Trial Court Opinion,
1/25/22, at 3. On July 27, 2020, the court issued orders rescheduling voir
dire for September 15, 2020 and Moyer’s trial for October 5, 2020.
According to the trial court, “At 5:17 p.m. on . . . Friday, September
11th, Attorney Keating submitted a continuance request via facsimile, citing a
schedule conflict due to a jury trial for another of his clients in Blair County.”
Id. “As the request was not made until after [the Court of Common Pleas of
Huntingdon County] was closed, the court did not become aware of it until the
following Monday, September 14th.” Id. Rather than delay the jury selection
further, the trial court “appointed another experienced attorney, Nicolas E.
Newfield, Esq., to represent [Moyer] solely for purposes of jury selection.” Id.
Neither Attorney Keating nor Attorney Newfield filed the September 11th
fax with the clerk of courts, and, at voir dire, Attorney Newfield did not move
for a continuance. Instead, he made only a “general objection to the process
being used for selection due to COVID-19 and a little different prejudice to
[Moyer] in this matter . . . .” N.T., 9/15/22, at 6.2
Moyer did not appear at voir dire, and the trial court empaneled a jury.
“Attorney Keating filed no motions between jury selection and trial.” Trial
Court Opinion, 1/25/22, at 4. He waited three weeks, until the morning of
trial, and told the court:
____________________________________________
2The stenographer erroneously dated the transcript of jury selection “Monday,
October 5, 2020.” We use the proper date in our citation.
-2-
J-S21030-22
Friday, I met with my client, and he wanted to hire Tom
Dickey. I’m not even wasting my time filing a continuance
in this matter. I explained to him [that, at] jury selection,
I filed a continuance, and it was denied, and new attorney
was appointed. I gave him the whole background of it. And
my client wants me to put on the record an objection to jury
selection going on without him and his counsel, and he
wants me to ask for a continuance today, so I’m just making
you aware of the issue ahead of time.
N.T., 10/5/20, at 3.
Trial commenced, the jury convicted Moyer, and the court sentenced
him as described above. This untimely appeal followed, but, due to a
breakdown in the trial court’s operations, we decline to quash.3
Moyer raised a single, compound issue: “Whether the trial court abused
its discretion in denying [his] continuance motions and having jury selection
and trial in [Moyer’s] absence.” Moyer’s Brief at 6. For ease of disposition,
we divide Moyer’s multifaceted question in its three subparts — (1) the
continuance motions, (2) jury selection in absentia, and (3) trial in absentia.
We address each subpart in turn.
1. Continuance Motions
We begin with the two continuance motions, neither of which appears
in the certified record. This raises the question of whether Moyer’s attorneys
properly preserved either request for appellate review. As we explain, they
did not.
____________________________________________
3 See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498-99 (Pa. Super.
2007) (holding that, where, as here, the clerk of courts delays in filing the
order that post-sentence motions are deemed denied by operation of law, that
delay is a breakdown in the court system and excuses a tardy appeal).
-3-
J-S21030-22
“The issue of waiver presents a question of law, and, as such, our
standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” Trigg v.
Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020).
This Court has said, “The fundamental tool for appellate review is the
official record of the events that occurred in the trial court.” Commonwealth
v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 6 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). Therefore, “the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for the transmission of a
certified record from the trial court to the appellate court,” and “matters which
are not of record cannot be considered on appeal.” Id. Any “document which
is not part of the officially certified record is deemed non-existent . . . .” Id.“Simply put, if a document is not in the certified record, the Superior Court
may not consider it.” Id. at 7.
Moreover:
The certified record consists of the “original papers
and exhibits filed in the lower court, the transcript of
proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket
entries prepared by the clerk of the lower court.” Pa.R.A.P.
1921. Our law is unequivocal that the responsibility rests
upon the appellant to ensure that the record certified on
appeal is complete in the sense that it contains all of the
materials necessary for the reviewing court to perform its
duty. Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562, 575
(Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). To facilitate an appellant’s
ability to comply with this requirement, our Supreme Court
adopted the following procedural rule effective as of June 1,
2004:
The clerk of the lower court shall, at the time of the
transmittal of the record to the appellate court, mail a
copy of the list of record documents to all counsel of
record, or if unrepresented by counsel, to the parties
-4-
J-S21030-22
at the address they have provided to the clerk. The
clerk shall note on the docket the giving of such
notice.
Pa.R.A.P. 1931(d). As the explanatory comment to Rule
1931 indicates, if counsel (or a party) discovers that
anything material has been omitted from the certified
record, the omission can be corrected pursuant to the
provisions of Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926. Under Rule
1926, an appellate court may direct that an omission or
misstatement shall be corrected through the filing of a
supplemental certified record. However, this does not alter
the fact that the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the
transmitted record is complete rests squarely upon the
appellant and not upon the appellate courts. Pa.R.A.P.
1931.
Id.In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court relates that Attorney Keating
faxed an after-hours continuance request on Friday, September 11, 2020,
regarding jury selection, scheduled for September 15th. However, Moyer does
not indicate in his brief where in the record we might locate that fax, and our
review of the record failed to disclose it. Hence, we conclude that neither
Attorney Keating nor Attorney Newfield filed the September 11th fax with the
clerk of courts. Thus, it never became part of the certified record, we do not
have it before us for appellate review, and we may not consider it.
Because the fax is not in the record, this Court cannot ascertain what
issues and arguments Moyer raised in that missing document. We therefore
dismiss the sub-issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in
denying Moyer’s faxed-in motion as waived. See Preston, supra.-5-
J-S21030-22
Additionally, on the morning before the trial, defense counsel expressly
declined to move for a continuance. He said, “I’m not even wasting my time
filing a continuance in this matter.” N.T., 10/5.22, at 2-3.
In other words, he did not raise this issue at the time of trial. As such,
defense counsel made no argument to the trial court to support a continuance.
Therefore, all of the arguments that Moyer makes in his appellate brief
regarding this issue are made for the first time on appeal, including his
reliance upon Article I, § 9 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. See Moyer’s Brief at 11-14.
Any “issues not raised in lower courts are waived for purposes of
appellate review, and they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). “This is because, as [the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania]
has oft reminded, issue preservation is foundational to proper appellate
review.” Trigg, 229 A.3d at 269.
We dismiss this sub-issue as waived.
2. Jury Selection in Absentia
Turning to Moyer’s claims that the trial court abused its discretion by
conducting the voir dire in his absence, again, we find waiver.
At the time of jury selection, Attorney Newfield made only a “general
objection” that never mentioned, much less argued the grounds for the
objection, why the trial court could not select a jury in Moyer’s absence. N.T.,
9/15/20, at 6. He did not give the trial court any legal basis for the objection.
Additionally, Attorney Keating made no motions to correct any perceived error
-6-
J-S21030-22
at jury selection in the nearly three weeks between voir dire and trial. Finally,
on the morning of trial, Attorney Keating said Moyer “wants me to put on the
record an objection to jury selection going on without him and his counsel
. . . .” N.T., 10/5/20, at 3.
To the extent that this was an objection to the jury selection, defense
counsel offered no legal theory to support it. Thus, he did make an argument
to the trial court regarding Moyer’s objection. A party raising an objection at
trial must, at a minimum, state the grounds for the objection to preserve the
issue for appeal.
It is well-settled that we “will not consider a claim which was not called
to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have
been corrected.” Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 1995). “The
principal rationale underlying the waiver rule is that when an error is pointed
out to the trial court, the court then has an opportunity to correct the error .
. . By specifically objecting to any obvious error, the trial court can quickly
and easily correct the problem and prevent the need for a new
trial.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641
A.2d 1176, 1184 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citation omitted) (holding that, in order
to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific
objection at trial, for this Court will not consider claims on appeal not called
to trial court’s attention at a time purported error could have been corrected).
Importantly, “the law is clear that issues, even those of constitutional
dimension, are waived if not raised in the trial court. A new and different
-7-
J-S21030-22
theory of relief may not be successfully advanced for the first time on
appeal.” Commonwealth v. Cline, 177 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa.Super.
2017), appeal denied, 646 Pa. 735, 187 A.3d 210 (2018); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Therefore, to the extent that Moyer claims his absence from voir dire
violated his constitutional rights, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any other
potential basis for objection, those issues are waived.
Additionally, Moyer’s appellate brief states no basis for why he claims
the trial court purportedly abused its discretion.
Our “Rules of Appellate Procedure do not permit conclusory arguments.
Each distinct issue [or sub-issue] must, at a minimum, contain citations of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc.,
211 A.3d 875, 883 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 221 A.3d 644 (Pa. 2019)
(quoting Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)). Additionally, when “an appellant’s argument is
underdeveloped, we may not supply [him] with a better one. In such
situations, we shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we
scour the record to find evidence to support an argument; instead, we will
deem the issue to be waived.” Id. at 884–85 (some punctuation omitted).
Moyer cites no rule or case law to support the suggested that the trial
court abused its discretion by conducting the voir dire without him. The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has long held that, “An abuse of discretion is
not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is
overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by
-8-
J-S21030-22
the evidence or the record, discretion is abused.” Commonwealth v.
Wade, 402 A.2d 1360, 1367 (Pa. 1979).
Rather than discuss his claim of error through that abuse-of-discretion
lens, Moyer provides this Court with two paragraphs of conclusory assertions
and suggestions as to what the trial court theoretically could have done,
instead of selecting the jury in absentia. See Moyer’s Brief at 14. He does
not explain why the trial court’s decision to proceed without him overrode the
law, was manifestly unreasonable, “or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias
or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record . . . .” Wade, 402 A.2d at
1367.
Hence, we dismiss this sub-issue on two grounds: (1) failure to object
in a meaningful way below (especially at the time of jury selection, see Trigg,
supra) and (2) Moyer’s underdeveloped appellate argument to support it on
appeal. See Pi Delta Psi, supra.
3. Trial in Absentia
Lastly, in his Statement of Issues Involved, Moyer claims the trial court
abused its discretion by failing to continue his jury trial. See Moyer’s Brief at
6. However, in his argument section, he does not offer a legal theory or any
analysis to support that assertion. See id. at 11-14. Accordingly, for the
above reasons, we also dismiss this sub-issue as waived. See Pi Delta Psi,
supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S21030-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/22/2022
- 10 -