Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-1962-2003COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PERCY J. TUCKER CP-21-SA-1962-2003 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., May 18, 2004. IN this summary offense case in which Defendant did not appear for trial before the district justice and did not appear for a trial de novo before this court, he has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a dismissal of the appeal and entry of judgment in this court on the judgment of the district justice. Continuing to proceed pro se, he has also not complied with an order that he file a statement of matters complained of on appeal. Defendant's Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court suggests the basis of the appeal as follows: NOW COMES, Percy J. Tucker with this Notice of Appeal based on the fact that I have not received notice of a hearing on my appeal. On October 29, 2003, I called Tracy concerning my appeal. Tracy stated that I should hear from the court within the next week; however I did not receive a reply concerning this case. Based on this fact, I request the Superior Court to order the Court of Common Pleas to rehear this matter. I apologize to the court for any miscommunications and inconvenience. Please forward all future correspondence to the address below. Date: December 29, 2003 Respectfully submitted, /s/Percy J. Tucker, Percy J. Tucker, Pro se 602 West 25th Street Norfolk, VA 23517 "Tracy" is not otherwise identified by Defendant. This opinion in support of the dismissal of Defendant's appeal by this court and entry of judgment upon the judgment (of sentence) of the district justice is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS According to a citation filed by Patrolman J. Anthony Cloud of the Carlisle Borough Police Department (Cumberland County), Defendant made a left turn in the borough on March 27, 2003, "without allowing enough time and distance for oncoming traffic," in violation of Section 3322 of the Vehicle Code.~ Defendant's address on the citation was given as 3542 Ten[n]essee Ave Norfolk VA 23502.2 Defendant did not appear for the summary trial on August 14, 2003, before District Justice Paula P. Correal and was found guilty in absentia, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 455.3 The statutory fine of $25 was imposed by the district justice.4 By notice filed September 16, 2003, Defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of sentence of the district justice.5 On the notice, he gave his address as 3542 Tennessee Ave, Norfolk, VA 23502.6 Notice of the de novo trial before this court was mailed by the Cumberland County District Attorney to Defendant at 3542 Tennessee Avenue, Norfolk, Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 75 Pa. C.S. §3322 (Vehicle turning left); see Traffic Citation A9390720-3. See Traffic Citation A9390720-3. See District Justice Transcript, filed September 24, 2003. Notice of Appeal from Summary Criminal Conviction, filed September 16, 2003. 6jd' 2 Virginia, 23502, on November 7, 2003.7 As noticed, the trial was scheduled for Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 3:00 p.m.8 This notice was not returned as undeliverable.9 Defendant did not appear for the de novo trial,l° After waiting more than 20 minutes beyond the time scheduled for trial, the court granted a motion of the Commonwealth to dismiss the appeal and enter judgment on the judgment of the issuing authority, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462(D).~ A copy of this order was mailed by the court to Defendant at 3542 Tennessee Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23502, on December 26, 2003'~2, this mail was returned to the court with a postal service notation of "Returned to Sender Addressee Unknown.''~3 On February 2, 2004, Defendant filed the Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court quoted at the beginning of this opinion.TM As indicated, he dated this Notice "December 29, 2003.''~5 Having divested this court of any remaining jurisdiction by the appeal,~6 he also filed a "Motion To Rehear," 7 N.T. 2, Trial, December 9, 2003. 8Id. 9Id' ~O ld' ~ Order of Court, December 9, 2003. ~: See Order of Court, December 9, 2003. ~ Although not docketed, this item appears in the official file. ~4 Notice of Appeal, filed February 2, 2004, at 11:50 a.m. The timeliness of Defendant's appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court is beyond the scope of this opinion. But see Pa.. R.A.P. 903(a) (general rule requiring appeals from lower court orders to be filed within 30 days of entry of order). ~51d' ~6 See Commonwealth v. Pearson, 454 Pa. Super. 313,325,685 A.2d 551,557 (1996); Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, §2, 42 Pa. C.S. §5505; Pa. R.A.P. 1701(a). 3 which he dated December 24, 2003.17 In these filings, for the first time, Defendant provided an address of record of"602 West 25th Street, Norfolk, VA 23517.''18 DISCUSSION It is obvious that a party to litigation, or a party's counsel, has a duty to maintain of record his or her current address for purposes of service. In this regard, pro se status, while permissible, can confer no special benefit upon a 19 party. In the present case, notice of the de novo trial on Defendant's appeal from summary was given to Defendant, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 113, at the address which he provided on his notice of appeal from the judgment of sentence of the district justice. It was not returned as undeliverable. Defendant maintained this address on the record for almost two months following the de novo trial which he had not attended. His eventual change of address on the record coincided with a divestiture of any remaining jurisdiction of this court by an appeal to the Superior Court. Under these circumstances, and based upon the foregoing rules and principles of law, it is believed that the court acted properly in entering the order appealed from by Defendant, dismissing his appeal from summary and entering judgment on the judgment of sentence of the issuing authority. In addition, it may be noted that Defendant's failure to appear for either the trial before the district justice or the trial de novo before this court, properly noticed, and his placement of patently incorrect dates upon the Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Notice To Rehear which he filed, raise a serious question as to the ~7 Motion To Rehear, filed February 2, 2004, at 2:10 p.m. The dates attributed by Defendant to the Notice of Appeal and Motion To Rehear are patently inconsistent with their submittals. ~8 Notice of Appeal, filed February 2, 2004, at 17:50 a.m.; Motion To Rehear, filed February 2, 2004, at 2:10 p.m. 19 See generally, Strawn v. Strawn, 444 Pa. Super. 390, 664 A.2d 129 (1995). 4 ingenuousness of his "[apology] inconvenience."2° to the court for any miscommunications and BY THE COURT, The Honorable Paula P. Correal District Justice Office of the District Attorney Percy J. Tucker 602 West 25th Street Norfolk, VA 23517 Defendant, pro se J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed February 2, 2004, at 11:50 a.m.. 5