Summary Appeal Remand Final Report: 12/29/2017

FINAL REPORT1

Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 462

Revision of the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 460

SUMMARY APPEAL REMAND

On December 29, 2017, effective April 1, 2018, upon the recommendation of the 

Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rule 462 (Trial De Novo) 

and revised the Comment to Rule 460 (Notice of Appeal) to clarify that when a petition 

to file a summary appeal nunc pro tunc is denied at the court of common pleas, the 

case remains at the common pleas level, in keeping with the Court’s long-standing 

policy that once a case moves from a lower court to the court of common pleas, the 

case should remain at common pleas.

The Committee recently examined an issue that has come up regarding the “noremand” policy in summary cases. A defendant is convicted of a summary offense 

before a magisterial district judge (MDJ) and then files a petition to be allowed to file a 

summary appeal nunc pro tunc. The common pleas court denies the petition and 

orders that the case be “remanded” to the MDJ office. The common pleas judge in 

these situations has taken the position that, because the common pleas court has never 

addressed the actual appeal, the case is not subject to the “no remand” provisions of 

Rule 462(H).

Under Rule 460(D), when an appeal is filed in a summary case, the case and 

associated documents are transferred from the MDJ to the clerk of courts and then 

adjudicated by a common pleas judge. Paragraph (H) of Rule 462 states:

 

1

The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee 

Comments to the rules. Also, note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the 

Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
Summary Appeal Remand Final Report: 12/29/2017 -2-

(H) After sentence is imposed by the trial judge, the case shall remain in 

the court of common pleas for the execution of sentence, including the 

collection of any fine and restitution, and for the collection of any costs.

This provision is one part of the Court’s long-standing “no remands” policy that 

provides that once a case “goes up” from the minor judiciary to the court of common 

pleas, it should stay at common pleas. This policy has been articulated in rule changes 

that were adopted in 2003 (clarifying when an appeal for a trial de novo in a summary 

case or a contempt adjudication is taken, the case remains in the court of common 

pleas for the execution of any sentence and collection of any fines and restitution, and 

collection of any costs), in 2006 (clarifying the procedures for handling cases in which a 

summary offense is joined with misdemeanor, felony, or murder charges both when the 

case is before the issuing authority and after the case is held for court), and in 2010 

(addressing three areas in which remands from the court of common pleas to the 

issuing authority still are occurring despite the Court’ s policy that prohibits such 

remands: (1) the practice of remanding cases for a preliminary hearing where a 

defendant who was designated as “NEI” is apprehended; (2) use of remands as 

remedies for a waived preliminary hearing; and (3) the practice of remanding cases 

without court involvement when the district attorney withdraws felony/misdemeanor prior 

to the filing of the information).2

Additionally, Rule 462 contains paragraph (D), which provides that the case is 

retained at common pleas if a defendant fails to appear for the trial de novo and the 

MDJ sentence is entered at common pleas, and paragraph (E), which provides similarly 

when the defendant withdraws the appeal. As noted above, paragraph (H) provides 

that when a sentence has been entered by the common pleas judge, it remains at 

common pleas for execution of sentence. The rationale for this policy is to prevent 

cases from “bouncing back and forth” between the MDJ and common pleas courts. 

This could result in confusion and the potential repeated transfer of court records and 

case-associated money.

 

2 See 33 Pa.B. 1324 (March 15, 2003), 36 Pa.B. 1385 (March 25, 2006), and 40 Pa.B. 

1068 (February 27, 2010).
Summary Appeal Remand Final Report: 12/29/2017 -3-

None of these amendments addressed the situation of the dismissal of a latefiled summary appeal. The Committee examined the above history of the no-remand 

policy and concluded that the underlying rationale of the policy would be applicable to 

the situation at issue. Since the common pleas court must make a decision on the 

petition, the case is transferred from the MDJ to the common pleas court. The same 

concerns about transferring the case record and money are present here as in other 

summary appeal situations. Additionally, the Committee noted the instances 

mentioned above where a case in which a full trial de novo has not been held, such as 

when a defendant fails to appear for the trial, still is retained at the common pleas court.

Therefore, a new paragraph (F) has been added to Rule 462 that would state 

specifically that a late-filed appeal adjudicated at common pleas court would remain at 

common pleas court. Additionally, a cross-reference to this new provision has been 

added to the Comment to Rule 460 since that rule provides the procedures for filing 

appeals, including time limitations.