J-S33043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KAY A. BROWN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 326 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 17, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-02-SA-0001578-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 6, 2023

Appellant Kay A. Brown files this pro se appeal from the judgment of 

sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which 

conducted a trial de novo on Appellant’s summary appeal from the guilty 

verdict entered by the magisterial district judge on the charge of Driving While 

Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked (non-DUI related) in violation of 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a). We affirm.

The trial court provided the following factual background:

During the hearing of February 17, 2023, Officer Jason 

Woleslagle, with the Pleasant Hills Police Department, testified 

that on October 9, 2022, he was investigating a vehicle accident 

that had occurred in a parking lot and saw that [Appellant’s] 

vehicle had a broken rear window from the crash. [Appellant] was 

the registered owner of the vehicle. There was someone in the 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33043-23

- 2 -

passenger’s seat of the vehicle but no one was in the driver’s 

seat.1 The keys were not in the vehicle.

After a while, [Appellant] exited a food shop called Jersey 

Mike’s and identified herself as being the operator of the vehicle. 

Officer Woleslagle testified that [Appellant] “identif[ied] herself as 

the owner and operator of the vehicle ...” Later in the hearing, in 

response to [the trial] court’s questions, Officer Woleslagle 

explained that he confronted [Appellant] after she had exited the 

food shop[, indicating] “I asked her for her license. She said she 

had no license and I asked how did she get here, she drove the 

vehicle here to go pick up food at Jersey Mike’s.” [The trial court] 

questioned whether [Appellant] said she drove and Officer 

Woleslagle responded “[s]he said she operated the vehicle, she 

told me she drove the vehicle.”

Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/23, at 1-2 (citations omitted). The Commonwealth 

admitted an exhibit from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

indicating that Appellant’s license had been suspended.

On February 17, 2023, the Court of Common Pleas held a hearing on 

Appellant’s summary appeal after which it affirmed the finding and sentence 

imposed by the magistrate in which Appellant was ordered to pay a $200.00 

fine plus costs. On March 16, 2023, Appellant filed this timely pro se appeal

and complied with the trial court’s direction to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2

____________________________________________

1 Appellant indicated at trial that the passenger was her husband, who could 

not walk and would have been unable to drive her vehicle.

2 We note that defendants in summary cases do not generally have a 

constitutional right to be provided with counsel. Commonwealth v. Long, 

688 A.2d 198, 201 (Pa.Super. 1996). Rather, “[t]he right to counsel in 

summary cases “attaches only to those defendants who are unable ‘to employ 

counsel when there is a likelihood that imprisonment will be imposed.” Id.

(citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 316(a)) (emphasis added). Thus, this Court found that 

“there is no right to counsel where the only sentence provided for in a 

summary violation is a fine and costs.” Long, 688 A.2d at 201.
J-S33043-23

- 3 -

Appellant raises the following issues for review on appeal:

1. Did the Courts have sufficient evidence in supporting the 

Appellant was driving.

2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the Appellant 

was driving on a public highway or roadway.

3. Did the Officer retrieve the video of the incident from Southland 

Shopping Center.

4. Did the Officer call or reveal the name of the eyewitness or 

Officer 2 for testimony.

Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

We are guided by the following standard of review:

Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction 

heard de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of 

whether the trial court committed an error of law and whether 

competent evidence supports the findings of fact. 

Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249, 251 (Pa. Super. 

2002). “The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on 

appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth

v. Parks, 768 A.2d 1168, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2001). “An abuse of 

discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment 

that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed 

to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, 

or ill will.” Id. (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Ishankulov, 275 A.3d 498, 502 (Pa.Super. 2022).

In the first two issues, Appellant argues that there was insufficient 

evidence to support her conviction for Driving While Operating Privilege is 

Suspended or Revoked under Section 1543(a). 

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims 

requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to 

the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence 

will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes 

each material element of the crime charged and the commission 
J-S33043-23

- 4 -

thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, 

the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved 

by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive 

that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from 

the combined circumstances.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence 

establishing a defendant's participation in a crime is circumstantial 

does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with 

the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the 

presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute 

our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as the 

evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a 

defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's 

convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336–37 (Pa.Super. 2019).

Section 1543(a) provides, in relevant part:

any person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or 

trafficway of this Commonwealth after the commencement of a 

suspension, revocation or cancellation of the operating privilege 

and before the operating privilege has been restored is guilty of a 

summary offense and shall, upon conviction or adjudication of 

delinquency, be sentenced to pay a fine of $200.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543.

The Vehicle Code defines “highway” and “trafficway” as follows:

“Highway.” The entire width between the boundary lines of every 

way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use 

of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. The term includes a 

roadway open to the use of the public for vehicular travel on 

grounds of a college or university or public or private school or 

public or historical park.

“Trafficway.” The entire width between property lines or other 

boundary lines of every way or place of which any part is open to 

the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right or 

custom.
J-S33043-23

- 5 -

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.

Specifically, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove 

that she was 1) driving a vehicle or 2) driving on a highway or trafficway.

Appellant argues that she never told Officer Woleslagle that she was driving 

the vehicle and emphasizes that Officer Woleslagle admits that he did not see 

her in the vehicle. While Appellant denies that her husband, who was sitting 

in the passenger seat, drove the vehicle, she asserts that there is no proof 

that she drove the vehicle.

In this case, Officer Woleslagle responded to an accident that occurred 

in a parking lot and discovered a vehicle, registered to Appellant, that showed

signs of damage. When Appellant came out of a nearby store, Officer 

Woleslagle indicated that Appellant told him that she had driven the vehicle

and admitted she did not have a license. Appellant admits that she was 

picking up food to “take back” to her home.

Given that the trial court found that Officer Woleslagle’s testimony was 

credible, the circumstantial evidence established that Appellant had driven her 

vehicle on a highway or trafficway while her license was suspended. Thus, 

Appellant’s sufficiency challenge fails.

In her third and fourth claims on appeal, Appellant suggests that the 

trial court should have required the Commonwealth to produce surveillance 

video from the Southland Shopping Center or called an additional eyewitness 

or responding officer to testify.
J-S33043-23

- 6 -

Other than these bald allegations, Appellant offers no authority or 

analysis to support these arguments. As such, we find these two issues to be 

waived on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 754 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (when the appellant fails to cite to legal authority and does 

not develop any meaningful analysis in support of a claim, we may find an 

issue waived for lack of development).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 10/6/2023