J-S42029-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. REGINALD PEARSON Appellant No. 1622 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered September 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-SA-0001359-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J. * MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2016 Reginald Pearson appeals pro se from the order entered September 15, 2015, in the Allegheny County Court of Common P leas dismissing his summary appeal due to his absence at the trial cour t hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s or der. On January 26, 2015, Pearson was cited for driving while his operating privilege was suspended or revoked. 1 He was found guilty after he failed to appear at the magisterial district court on May 28, 2015. Pearson filed a summary appeal on June 25, 2015, at which time he w as notified his appeal would be heard before the trial court on September 15, 2015. On the day of

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a).J-S42029-16

- 2 -

the hearing, Pearson again failed to appear. Pursu ant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462(D), the trial court dismi ssed the appeal, and ordered him to pay a fine of $200 plus costs. This timely appeal followed. 2 Before we address the substantive claim on appeal, we note that the brief Pearson submitted to this Court has substanti al defects. 3 Specifically, Pearson’s brief does not contain any of the require d sections listed in Pa.R.A.P. 2111, but rather resembles a letter which sets forth his argument. “When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific is sues for review a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v. Maris , 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1993). Here, although the d efects in Pearson’s brief are considerable we are still able to ascertain his argument on appeal. Therefore, we decline to quash this appeal.

____________________________________________ 2 The trial court did not enter an order directing t he filing of a consice statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuan t to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

3 As this Court explained in Commonwealth v. Rivera , 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996): While this court is willing to liberally construe m aterials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled t o any particular advantage because she lacks legal traini ng. As our supreme court has explained, “any layperson choosin g to represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing.”

Id. at 1013 (citation omitted).J-S42029-16

- 3 -

When considering a trial court’s decision to dismi ss a summary appeal in which the defendant fails to appear before the c ourt, our standard of review is limited to finding an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Commonwealth v. Dixon , 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013). Pursuant to the applicable Rules of Criminal Proced ure, when a defendant appeals the entry of a conviction by an i ssuing authority in a summary proceeding, the case shall b e heard de novo by the judge of the court of common pleas sitting without a jury. Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(A). . . . And, the trial j udge may dismiss the appeal and reinstate the judgment of the issuin g authority when the defendant fails to appear at the scheduled trial de novo . Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).

Commonwealth v. Panto , 913 A.2d 292, 293-294 (Pa. Super. 2006). However, this Court will reverse a trial court’s d ismissal of a summary appeal and remand for a trial de novo when: (1) a trial court dismisses a summary appeal witho ut considering whether the absentee defendant had caus e to justify the absence; and (2) the absentee defendant present s an affidavit on appeal that (assuming the assertions d elineated in the affidavit are true) presents at least a prima facie demonstration that cause existed for the absence, r endering that absence involuntary.

Dixon , supra , 66 A.3d at 797. See Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi , 814 A.2d 249, 252-253 (Pa. Super. 2002).
In Dixon , the defendant failed to appear before the trial c ourt for the summary appeal hearing because he initially went to the wrong location. Dixon , supra , 66 A.3d at 796. After being told numerous incorr ect directions, he returned home and missed the proceed ings. Id. This CourtJ-S42029-16

- 4 -

dismissed his appeal, reasoning that the “[a]ppella nt was aware of the time, date, and location of the hearing. . . . but faile d to report to the correct room.” Id. at 798. Here, Pearson contends he was in a treatment “prog ram” at the time of the scheduled proceedings, which precluded his p resence at the hearing. Pearson’s Brief at 1. He further stated he “couldn ’t communicate with anyone outside the program due to [him] being on bl ackout when [he] first entered,” and he “didn’t miss [his] court dates on purpose.” Id. While Pearson does provide a plausible explanation for his absence from the hearing, he did not offer any proof to sup port his claim. Importantly, the record shows Pearson had knowledge of the date of his hearing and, without explanation, failed to seek a continuance. Moreover, he did not attach to his brief any documents demons trating when his treatment began or why it led to his absence at the trial court. He also failed to include the requisite affidavit as set fo rth in Dixon

. See Dixon , supra , 66 A.3d at 797. Because we can find no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Pearson’s summar y appeal. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.J-S42029-16

- 5 -

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2016