J-A09013-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSHUA KING 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 481 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 14, 2023

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

No(s): CP-63-SA-0000023-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: April 11, 2024

Appellant, Joshua King, appeals pro se from the March 14, 2023 

judgment of sentence entered in the Washington County Court of Common 

Pleas following his failure to appear at his summary appeal hearing. After 

careful review, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On October 

24, 2022, the magisterial district court convicted Appellant of Driving While 

Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked.

1

 The court sentenced Appellant 

to pay fines, fees, and costs in the amount of $337.89. Appellant did not file 

a timely appeal from his judgment of sentence.

On February 7, 2023, Appellant filed a nunc pro tunc motion to file a 

summary appeal from his judgment of sentence along with a notice of appeal

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a).
J-A09013-24

- 2 -

to the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court granted 

the motion that same day and the clerk notified Appellant in writing that his 

summary appeal hearing would occur on March 14, 2023, at 9:30 AM. 

Appellant’s signature appears on the notice scheduling the summary appeal

hearing. 

On March 14, 2023, Appellant failed to appear at the summary appeal

hearing, and, upon motion of the Commonwealth, the trial court dismissed 

Appellant’s summary appeal pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), and reinstated 

the sentence imposed by the magisterial district court.

2

 On April 10, 2023, 

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing Appellant’s 

summary appeal and reinstating the sentence imposed by the magisterial 

district court. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration on 

April 18, 2023.

On April 24, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal order with this Court 

challenging the order dismissing his summary appeal and reinstating the 

judgment of sentence imposed by the magisterial district court.3 

On May 23, 2023, this Court directed Appellant to show cause why we 

should not dismiss his appeal as untimely filed. On June 5, 2023, Appellant 

filed a response to the rule to show cause. On June 14, 2023, this Court 

____________________________________________

2 Pa.R.Crim.P 462(D) provides that “[i]f the defendant fails to appear, the trial 

judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the court of common 

pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).

3 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
J-A09013-24

- 3 -

discharged the rule to show cause and notified Appellant that the merits panel 

assigned to this case may revisit the issue of the timeliness of this appeal.

Accordingly, prior to addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we 

must determine if this appeal was timely filed, since our jurisdiction is 

dependent upon the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Commonwealth v. 

Nahavandian, 954 A.2d 625, 629 (Pa. Super. 2008).

As noted above, on April 10, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se motion for 

reconsideration of the trial court’s March 14, 2023 order dismissing his 

summary appeal and reinstating the sentence imposed by the magisterial 

district court.

4

 The trial court denied Appellant’s request on April 18, 2023, 

more than 30 days after it entered the order from which Appellant now 

appeals.

Because the trial court did not expressly grant reconsideration within 

thirty days of entry of the order, Appellant’s pro se motion for reconsideration 

did not toll the 30-day appeal period. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). (“Except as 

otherwise prescribed by this rule, the notice of appeal . . . shall be filed within 

30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”). See

____________________________________________

4 Because the conviction giving rise to Appellant’s judgment of sentence was 

of summary offense, Appellant was precluded from filing a post-sentence 

motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D). Appellant was not, however, precluded from 

filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his summary appeal 

hearing due to his failure to appear. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720, miscellaneous 

note (“Although there are no post[-]sentence motions in summary appeals 

following the trial de novo pursuant to paragraph (D), nothing in this rule is 

intended to preclude the trial judge from acting on a defendant’s petition for 

reconsideration [pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505].”).
J-A09013-24

- 4 -

also Commonwealth v. Moir, 766 A.2d 1253, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(finding that because the trial court did not expressly grant a motion for

reconsideration within the thirty-day appeal period following a summary trial,

the defendant was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of the 

entry of his judgment of sentence to avoid quashal on timeliness grounds).

Accordingly, Appellant was required to file a notice of appeal from the court’s 

March 14, 2023 order dismissing his summary appeal within 30 days of entry 

of that order. 

Appellant’s appeal filed 41 days after entry of the court’s order

reinstating his judgment of sentence is untimely. Thus, we are constrained to 

quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed.

4/11/2024