J-A15006-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL ASCENZI

Appellant No. 1346 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 13, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-SA-0000158-2016 

 CP-40-SA-0000159-2016

BEFORE: MOULTON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED AUGUST 02, 2017

Michael Ascenzi appeals, pro se, from the July 13, 2016 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas following his 

convictions for exceeding the maximum speed, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362, and 

driving while operating privilege suspended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a). We 

affirm.

The trial court thoroughly summarized the facts underlying this appeal 

in its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion, which we 

adopt and incorporate herein. See Opinion, 1/13/17, at 1-3.

On April 12, 2016, Magisterial District Judge (“MDJ”) Alexandra Kokura 

Kravitz, whose district includes Jenkins Township, convicted Ascenzi of the 

above-referenced offenses. Ascenzi filed a summary appeal with the trial 

court, which held an evidentiary hearing on July 13, 2016. At the hearing, 
J-A15006-17

- 2 -

Ascenzi challenged MDJ Kravitz’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, arguing 

that the arresting officer, Officer Christopher Purcell, should have filed the 

citations with the MDJ in neighboring Plains Township. At the conclusion of 

the hearing, the trial court: determined that MDJ Kravitz had jurisdiction; 

found Ascenzi guilty of both offenses; and sentenced Ascenzi to pay a 

$1,000 fine plus costs. Ascenzi timely appealed to this Court.

On appeal, Ascenzi asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that 

MDJ Kravitz had jurisdiction to adjudicate his traffic citations.1 Ascenzi 

contends that because Officer Purcell stopped Ascenzi’s vehicle in Plains 

Township, Officer Purcell should have filed the citations with the MDJ in 

Plains Township. We disagree.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 130 provides: “All criminal 

proceedings in summary and court cases shall be brought before the issuing 

____________________________________________

1

In his statement of questions involved, Ascenzi also purports to 

challenge the legality of his sentence, see Ascenzi’s Br. at 3, an issue not 

raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Although the legality of a sentence is generally a non-waivable issue, we find 

Ascenzi’s sentencing claim waived because he failed to develop it in a 

manner making meaningful appellate review possible. See 

Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1287-88 (Pa.Super. 2006) 

(finding legality of sentence claim waived for appellant’s “fail[ure] to present 

any argument whatsoever” in his brief). Ascenzi does not discuss the issue 

in the argument section of his brief, nor did he address it during oral 

argument before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 

915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any 

discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the 

issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is 

waived.”).
J-A15006-17

- 3 -

authority for the magisterial district in which the offense is alleged to 

have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to 

serve such magisterial district . . . .” Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(A) (emphasis 

added).

Here, the evidence established that Ascenzi committed the traffic 

offenses within the boundaries of Jenkins Township and, thus, within MDJ

Kravitz’s district. Officer Purcell testified that State Road 315 traverses 

approximately 500-600 feet through Jenkins Township and that Ascenzi was 

traveling on that portion of State Road 315 when he committed the offenses. 

N.T., 7/13/16, at 5, 10. The trial court, as the factfinder, credited Officer 

Purcell’s testimony. See id. at 16-17. Therefore, we conclude that MDJ 

Kravitz had jurisdiction over Ascenzi’s citations under Rule 130(A).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/2/2017
Circulated 07/21/2017 12:42 PM